BU Today

Health & Wellness

Indoor Tanning Dangerous, Warns MED Prof

New report on perils of tanning salons

110

The title of a congressional report last month said it all: “False and Misleading Health Information Provided to Teens by the Indoor Tanning Industry.” With students already heading to tanning salons before next month’s spring break, Barbara Gilchrest, a School of Medicine professor of dermatology, is echoing the report’s warnings against bronzing on a tanning bed.

The risk of melanoma jumps 75 percent for people who begin indoor tanning before the age of 30, and among people who’ve tanned 10 times or more by that age, the risk of a melanoma diagnosis is six times higher than for those who’ve never tanned inside, according to the report. UVA, a type of ultraviolet (UV) light, from sunlamps, “can be as much as 10 to 15 times more powerful than midday sun,” the report to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce warns. And skin cancer rates have shot up along with the popularity of tanning. “Melanoma is now the most common form of cancer for white women between the ages of 15 and 29 years old,” the report says. “Since 1980, the rate of melanoma in this group has increased by 50 percent.”

Yet congressional investigators posing as teens in calls to salons found that 90 percent denied any health risk to fair-skinned teen girls. More than half said tanning would not increase a fair-skinned teen’s cancer risk. Four out of five salons wrongly insisted that indoor tanning had health benefits, from increasing vitamin D to preventing cancer.

The federal government classifies tanning beds (along with Band-Aids and tongue depressors) among the least regulated of medical devices. The Food and Drug Administration is pondering tighter regulations, as recommended by a 2010 advisory panel, a majority of whose members also supported age restrictions on tanning bed use. Massachusetts and some other states require that minors have parental consent before tanning indoors, but one study found just 19 percent of Bay State salons checking, according to the House report.

“Everybody gets a fair amount of UV exposure, even if they think they are practicing safe sun,” says Gilchrest. But indoor tanning is dangerous, she says, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an advisory group to the government, issued a report in November debunking industry claims that tanning is good for you. BU Today talked to her about the congressional report and its recommendations.

BU Today: Is it your sense that college students, including BU’s, patronize tanning salons regularly?
Gilchrest: In general, heavy usage certainly continues through college age, the 16-to-25 age group, very conscious of appearance, very much in the dating game.

Why do young women predominate as tanning customers?
I think it’s more socially acceptable for women to actively spend time on improving their appearance. Certainly young men do try to tan. But doing things that consciously are intended to improve your appearance—I think that’s something generally viewed as feminine.

Is tanning like alcohol or sweets—safe if used in moderation?
Over the course of a year, we all get a lot of UV light, even in an area like Boston. And nobody applies the proper amount of sunscreen. They apply somewhere between a quarter and a half of what is recommended by the manufacturer. So why is it a big deal in a tanning booth? One reason is there are areas of the body getting exposure in a tanning bed that are probably not getting it otherwise. And the intensity of the UV is probably many times higher. We don’t know, frankly, what that does. It may overwhelm the body’s ability to repair the damage.

Should indoor tanning be illegal for minors?
I strongly recommend that people not use tanning booths, that it’s dangerous, that it encourages them not to use sunscreen. I would also recommend that people not smoke. Whether it should be against the law gets into how much should be forbidden and how much should be left to people’s judgment after education. But to make it a bit more difficult is a great idea—at a minimum, to have parental approval required for minors, and to go after the tanning parlors that don’t ask for it.

Will the feds pass stricter regulations or does the tanning industry have political clout similar to the banking industry, for instance, enabling them to block tougher legislation?
They are probably not up there with the banks, but there is a big tanning lobby, and they spend a lot of money on it. Until the Institute of Medicine report came out last November, industry spokesmen were saying there’s a vitamin D deficiency in the United States, you need to use tanning beds to prevent every condition under the sun. The IOM panel released an analysis of over 1,000 publications and studies and concluded there was absolutely no evidence to support those statements.

Without making tanning illegal for the young, how might we alert them to the risks?
I wish I didn’t think it would be a problem five years from now. I suspect it will. As with the antismoking campaign, you just have to chip away at providing education: from their school curriculum, from magazines read by teens. More importantly, just make it not cool to be tan. There is a shift away from at least dark tans being attractive. The American Academy of Dermatology and other groups met with editors of fashion magazines and teen magazines and asked them to use models that were less tanned. If you look at the Coppertone ads, the baby with her bathing suit being pulled down by the dog is not as tanned as she used to be.

One of the problems is that young people think they are immortal. And that by the time they are 30, they should be dead anyway, because it’s disgusting to be 30.

What’s your advice for students planning to hit the beach for spring break?
My advice: safe sun to the extent possible. Sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher, with reapplication after swimming. They will still tan, if somewhat less darkly, but the risk of burning is much less. Hats, shirts, or cover-ups—many are quite alluring or fun to wear—beach umbrellas, midday breaks inside for lunch or other activities. And good genes from their parents!

110 Comments
Rich Barlow

Rich Barlow can be reached at barlowr@bu.edu.

110 Comments on Indoor Tanning Dangerous, Warns MED Prof

  • Mr. Tan Man on 02.13.2012 at 9:23 am

    While I completely agree with most of this article, I have to inquire about this quote:

    “More importantly, just make it not cool to be tan. ”

    But what about us naturally tan people?! Ruh roh!

  • Rhett on 02.13.2012 at 9:30 am

    Congressional investigators? I think you mean John Boehner checking out these places personally.

  • Sara on 02.13.2012 at 10:35 am

    Unfortunately this is a very one-sided discussion. It’s not such a cut-and-dry matter that UV is damaging.

    Small amounts of sun (enough to improve vitamin D status but not enough to cause a burn) is protective against skin cancer (and many other ailments). Too much OR too little sun is harmful. Also, sunblocks are not stacking up to be the solution: they are also implicated in increased risk for skin cancer. It’s unclear to me whether that is mainly due to the chemicals in them or if that effect is mediated through a tendency for sunblock users to burn more than those who increase their exposure to the sun gradually.

    A more nuanced look at this issue would address the above (rather than recommending people get as little sun as possible), and then describe why tanning booths in particular might be problematic. The two biggest concerns seem to be the mismatch between the UV you get from the sun and the UV you get from the tanning beds (much less UVB that makes vitamin D in the tanning beds) and the dosage (much more intense in the tanning beds than from the summer midday sun). Both of these make current tanning practices risky.

    Someone could try to mitigate those risks by asking tanning salons for the UV spectra of their beds, and only use any that more closely match the spectrum we get from the sun. Another option is to use an upright booth and stand further away from it to reduce the dosage. Best of course is to get regular sun when possible, but that of course isn’t possible in Boston in the winter. Another way to mitigate your risk is to take vitamin D supplements.

    • Anthony Priestas (Liberty at BU) on 02.13.2012 at 3:34 pm

      Thank you, Sara, for your voice of reason. I was to address these points in a similar fashion, but wanted to first seek out the opinion of BU’s Dr. Mike Holick, an expert and trailblazer on Vitamin-D (and author of The Vitmain-D Solution). I’m curious as to why he is not in this article. I’m awaiting his response until I comment (check back if interested).

      • Sara on 02.13.2012 at 4:45 pm

        Thanks, Anthony. I’m really interested what Dr. Holick has to say.

        • Interested too, very on 02.14.2012 at 6:01 pm

          And I would really like to know how WB Grant and colleagues can expect to be taken seriously when they throw out unenforced “standards, recommendations, and training” assurances to support their findings.

          “There are a number of well-known risk factors for melanoma, including skin pigmentation, hair color, moles, and painful sunburns (1, 2, 5). Currently, industry standards, recommendations, and training warn very fair-skinned persons (skin type I) against indoor tanning.”
          http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/10/2685.1.full

          Dr Lazovich, the researcher whose findings support the IARC report and were critiqued by WB Grant and colleagues, responds to the skin type question here..

          http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/10/2685.2.full

          “In their letter, Grant and colleagues conclude that “those with preexisting high-risk factors… should be careful in using indoor tanning…”. Our data clearly indicate that both persons with and persons without these factors should expect that use of indoor tanning, especially frequent use, will increase their risk of developing malignant melanoma.”

          It would appear that all skin types are at risk.

    • Tracie on 02.13.2012 at 4:52 pm

      Here is a picture of the light spectrum [http://ashleylynnsmassage.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/lamp-spectrums.jpg] emitted from a tanning lamp. You can check…very similar to outside sunlight. Here is another picture [http://ashleylynnsmassage.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/lamp-spectrums2.jpg]. I hope it’s okay that I’ve attached this link. This is representative of most indoor tanning lamps.

      • Anonymous on 02.13.2012 at 11:33 pm

        But it doesn’t matter that the light spectrum in a tanning bed is similar to outside sunlight–it’s that it’s more intense. That’s why you would only tan for ~10 minutes at a time (whereas you could lie outside for longer than that before starting to burn), and that’s why it’s more damaging to your skin.

        • Anonymous on 02.14.2012 at 10:04 am

          The Intensity of a tanning bed has been a much over stated subject the those opposing tanning.

          The reality is that the typical 20 minute bed in America is equal to approximately 43 minutes of exposure in Hawaii at Noon during the summer.

          Hardly Microwave effects described by some.

          • no so fast on 02.14.2012 at 1:49 pm

            “The Intensity of a tanning bed has been a much over stated subject the those opposing tanning.
            The reality is that the typical 20 minute bed in America is equal to approximately 43 minutes of exposure in Hawaii at Noon during the summer.”

            OVERSTATED?

            The salons themselves advertise tanning in minutes in these power hungry beds..
            http://www.sportarredo.us/laydown/high/mastersun360.htm

            Mr sunshine it is not..

          • not so fast on 02.14.2012 at 2:21 pm

            Over stated?

            The salons themselves advertise tanning in minutes in these power hungry beds..
            http://www.sportarredo.us/laydown/high/mastersun360.htm

    • AL on 02.14.2012 at 11:46 am

      For the most part, there is no mismatch between the sun and the majority of tanning beds. The sun is 95% UVA and 5% UVB, which is exactly what the majority of tanning beds produce.

    • Nathan on 02.14.2012 at 11:48 am

      A more balanced look at the dangers of indoor tanning would have equated the Tanning Industry lobbyists and apologists with the Tobacco Industry lobbyists and apologists.

      A ‘nuanced’ government response to the blatant lies of tanning salons would be to shut down the 81% of Massachusetts tanning salons found not in compliance with parental consent laws.

      http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Tanning%20Investigation%20Report%202.1.12.pdf

      • tanning debate is new tobacco war on 02.14.2012 at 2:08 pm

        “A more balanced look at the dangers of indoor tanning would have equated the Tanning Industry lobbyists and apologists with the Tobacco Industry lobbyists and apologists.”

        here is a great read that does just that…
        http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=352b66cf-bb9d-4334-80f3-ce095ffd143d

        And here we see some scientists opposing public health initiatives aiming to regulate the safe delivery of UV radiation for profit. Based on what, preliminary findings, observational studies..
        (They failed to convince the politicians in Victoria Canada at least..)

        http://www.crd.bc.ca/minutes/capitalregionaldistr_/2011_/2011boardminutes01ja/2011boardminutes01ja.pdf

        page 2

        18. Doug McNabb, JCTA – spoke against Bylaw 3711.

        19. Marc Sorenson, Sunlight Institute – spoke against Bylaw 3711.

        20. Joe Levy, Smart Tan Canada – spoke against Bylaw 3711.

        21. M. Papas, PhD, witness for JCTA – not in attendance.

        22. William Grant, PhD, Sunlight, Nutrition & Health Research Centre – spoke against Bylaw 3711.

      • Observer on 02.25.2012 at 2:01 pm

        Similarities?
        Perhaps

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446868/
        Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms
        Elisa K. Ong, MD, MS and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

        Public health professionals need to be aware that the “sound science” movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients.

  • A non-tanner on 02.13.2012 at 1:05 pm

    A hundred or a thousand years from now, someone will look back at this culture and be puzzled and/or disturbed by countless social behaviors, many of which are geared toward vanity. They will ask,”Did young women really pay to enter dark tanks and knowingly expose themselves to intense UV light that would burn their skin, over and over again, because they thought it made them more beautiful?!” It will seem the bizarre choice it is.

    • John on 04.03.2012 at 7:43 pm

      Well a thousand years from now if people stay out of the sun or tanning beds there will be many more reasons to bring them back. If the sun went away the world would die. Tanning beds give Vitamin D so get over it they are good for you. And do your research tanning salons increase is only 6% not the 75% being posted. 96% is from Doctors medical use.

      • so the sun goes away if we abstain? on 04.04.2012 at 6:35 pm

        why not enlighten us John, this sounds fascinating..

        (Oh you mean tanning beds.. are they really going somewhere? tip-top:)

      • only, merely, whatever on 04.05.2012 at 2:02 am

        who cares about that 6% lot eh, leave ‘em for the crows!

        Better yet, why not line ‘em up and coumt them again …
        as it looks like the industry’s oft repeated IARC critique has failed to impress yet another government body. (The BC government later announced an under eighteen ban.)

        http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/year/2011/ITWG-Report.pdf

        (page 14)

        [BCCA, CCS and CDA Response
        Research shows that all types of UV radiation increase the risk of skin cancer. Both the National Toxicology
        Program and the IARC have concluded that tanning beds and solar radiation are cancer causing.
        The IARC findings are based on a body of peer‐reviewed evidence, not individual research. According to the
        IARC report, UV radiation is a known carcinogen, and risk increases with exposure. Tanning bed use increases
        a person’s lifetime exposure to UV radiation and risk for skin cancer.
        With respect to basal cell carcinoma, the IARC study did not support an association with the use of indoor
        tanning facilities. However, the IARC study pointed out that “… the fashion of indoor tanning is still very
        recent. Associations after long latency periods, such as may be expected for melanoma and basal cell
        carcinoma, may not yet be detectable.”38
        While it is preferable that Skin Type I people do not use tanning equipment, there is no evidence in B.C. that
        they avoid indoor tanning. Also, fair‐skinned people are more likely than darker‐skinned people to seek a
        tan.39 Since commercial tanning is mainly cosmetic, the benefit – considering the skin cancer risk – is
        nonexistent.]

        38 IARC Working Group, Exposure to Artificial UV Radiation and Skin Cancer, 49.
        39 Joni A. Mayer et al., “Adolescents’ Use of Indoor Tanning: A Large‐Scale Evaluation of Psychosocial, Environmental and Policy‐Level
        Correlates,” American Journal of Public Health 101, no. 5 (2011): 930‐938.

  • Tanning is Dumb on 02.13.2012 at 1:07 pm

    Use spray-on tan. Don’t risk getting cancer to look “good.”

    • Eileen on 02.28.2012 at 1:22 pm

      To Tanning is Dumb, if spray tan is so smart then why hasn’t it received FDA approval? Why are Derms calling it safe when the FDA won’t even call it safe? UV Tanning beds are regulated by the FDA spray tan is not… only lotion you put on your body and stay CLEAR of your eyes so you would need makeup or look like a racoon.

      • don't walk away on 02.29.2012 at 3:55 pm

        Eileen…
        do you sell tanning lotions and accelerators for application prior to tanning?
        If so, do you have any studies that demonstrate safety?

        Some quotes from FDA Consumer Information..
        —————————————————–
        http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications/ucm126246.htm

        Some people do things that make tanning beds even more dangerous, like:

        • Using medicines or cosmetics that make you more sensitive to UV rays. Check with your doctor, nurse or pharmacist.”

        “Some lotions and pills claim to make you tan faster. There is no proof that these work. “Tanning accelerators” are not approved by the FDA.”

        ————————————–

        • Eileen on 03.06.2012 at 12:10 am

          My number one choice for what I put on my skin is pure organic coconut oil. Tanning lotions normally have heavier moisturizers like shea butter, grapeseed oil,coconut oil, etc. Just like all products you buy you can chose products that are better for your skin. I have great skin and I’ve been in the sun my entire life, I do not let myself burn and I never ever use the sunscreens that blocked UVB for 20 years and let your body absorb UVA for 8 hours a day, your body wasn’t designed to absorb 8 hours of just UVA! I feel the damage over the past 20 years is from sunscreen use and the pollution that damages the ozone level. I’m in my 50′s and I have great skin, I’ve never visited a derm or plastic surgeon and I have an excellent diet. These derm pump botox under your skin and you’re concerned about a topical lotion containing tyrosine? :)

          • tyrosine? on 03.09.2012 at 2:20 pm

            “These derm pump botox under your skin and you’re concerned about a topical lotion containing tyrosine?”

            Has tyrosine been tested for topical use under electric UV lamps? (for adults, and of course children -for application in a non medical setting?) Does it have FDA approval? If so, please provide data.

            Here are some quotes on tyrosine from WebMD ..
            ————————-

            Tyrosine is LIKELY SAFE in food amounts and POSSIBLY SAFE when taken by adults short-term in medicinal amounts or applied to the skin. Tyrosine seems to be safe when used in doses up to 150 mg/kg per day for up to 3 months. Some people experience side effects such as nausea, headache, fatigue, heartburn, and joint pain.

            There isn’t enough information available to know if tyrosine is safe for children to use in medicinal amounts. Don’t give it to children without the advice of your healthcare provider until more is known.

            Special Precautions & Warnings:
            Pregnancy and breast-feeding: Not enough is known about the safety of using tyrosine during pregnancy and breast-feeding. Stay on the safe side and avoid use.

            * Levodopa interacts with TYROSINE

            Tyrosine might decrease how much levodopa the body absorbs. By decreasing how much levodopa the body absorbs, tyrosine might decrease the effectiveness of levodopa. Do not take tyrosine and levodopa at the same time.
            * Thyroid hormone interacts with TYROSINE

            The body naturally produces thyroid hormones. Tyrosine might increase how much thyroid hormone the body produces. Taking tyrosine with thyroid hormone pills might cause there to be too much thyroid hormone. This could increase the effects and side effects of thyroid hormones. The following doses have been studied in scientific research:

            BY MOUTH:

            * For improving alertness after being without sleep for a long time: 150 mg/kg/day of tyrosine.
            * For PKU: The current recommendation for people with PKU is the incorporation of 6 grams of tyrosine per 100 grams of protein. However, additional separate supplementation with free tyrosine is not recommended because it can produce wide variations in the amount of tyrosine in the blood and could cause unwanted side effects.

            Overactive thyroid (hyperthyroidism) or Graves disease: The body uses tyrosine to make thyroxine, a thyroid hormone. Taking extra tyrosine might increase thyroxine levels too much, making hyperthyroidism and Graves disease worse. If you have one of these conditions, don’t take tyrosine supplements.

            http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1037-TYROSINE.aspx?activeIngredientId=1037&activeIngredientName=TYROSINE

            ———————————————————–

            btw, I have type one skin. Sitting in the sun has never been my cup of tea, with or without sun screen. My skin is soft as butter, beautiful really. Except for some sun damage on my arms (and yes, before you ask, that is where my skin cancer presented).

        • Eileen on 03.09.2012 at 12:24 am

          You can find the lotions you are talking about at Walgreen’s, Target, Rite-Aide, Walmart, Ulta…. shall I go on?

          Dr. Gilcrest did you prescribe or suggest treatment of sunscare cream with no UVA protection for the past 20 years and did you profit from the seal of approval scam for years?

          The AAD has been criticized by some of its members for its commercial endorsement of sunscreens. Many AAD officers have ties to companies that manufacture sunscreens. One product with the AAD seal, Johnson & Johnson’s Aveeno Sunblock Lotion with SPF 55, contains OXYBENZONE!

          The Skin Cancer Foundation also has a “seal of recommendation” program. But “the main criterion for displaying the seal is donating $10,000 to SCF to join the Corporate Council.

          For a fee, sunscreen manufacturers such as Neutrogena, Jergens and Oil of Olay can display the American Cancer Society logo on their products.

          The Sun Safety Alliance which promotes sunscreen use, was founded by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, whose members sell sunscreens, and Schering-Plough, maker of Coppertone.

          This is not about health it’s about money and lots of it. When I was a teen one female in our class went to a derm for melanoma on her arm. She’s still doing great today. In todays teen world there is probably one teen that hasn’t visited a derm, then you wonder why you find so many things to hack off their bodies?

          Sorry I’m not drinking your koolaide I will stay in control of my own health and my children’s. I’ll save my visit to the doctor someday if I have real emergency.

          • kettle black on 03.09.2012 at 2:48 pm

            How many salons advertised safe UVA beds?

            We had no sunscreen when I was a child. And no awareness that burns could be harmful. I for one do not blame scientists for developing UVB sunscreen 20 years ago when they were working with what they knew at the time.

            you say..

            “When I was a teen one female in our class went to a derm for melanoma on her arm. She’s still doing great today. In todays teen world there is probably one teen that hasn’t visited a derm, then you wonder why you find so many things to hack off their bodies? ”

            I am glad your friend is doing well; the survival rate for melanoma is very good when it is caught early. And there’s the rub -catching it early means people have to know to look for it and then follow their instincts; many don’t.

      • does UV tanning have FDA approval? on 03.01.2012 at 1:06 am

        Sure the FDA regulates the beds, but the FTC does not appear to permit salons to say indoor tanning is approved by government. If this argument were to be persuasive, then the spray product would not have FDA approval, but evidently it does.

        (either way I’d take a pass)

        FTC on UV Tanning…

        ——————————————–
        Indoor Tanning Association Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers About Skin Cancer Risks From Tanning

        In addition to denying the skin cancer risks of tanning, the campaign allegedly also made these false claims:

        Indoor tanning is approved by the government;
        Indoor tanning is safer than tanning outdoors because the amount of ultraviolet light received when tanning indoors is monitored and controlled;
        Research shows that vitamin D supplements may harm the body’s ability to fight disease; and
        A National Academy of Sciences study determined that “the risks of not getting enough ultraviolet light far outweigh the hypothetical risk of skin cancer.”
        The complaint also alleges that the association failed to disclose material facts in its advertising.

        Under its settlement with the Commission, the association is prohibited from making the misrepresentations challenged in the complaint, from misrepresenting any tests or studies, and from providing deceptive advertisements to members.”

        http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/01/tanning.shtm

        ————————————————————

        FDA on Sunless Tanning

        Sunless Tanning Sprays and Lotions
        Sunless tanning delivers a faux glow by coating your skin with the chemical dihydroxyacetone (DHA). DHA interacts with the dead surface cells in the epidermis to darken skin color and simulate a tan, and the result usually lasts for several days.

        While the FDA allows DHA to be “externally applied” for skin coloring, there are restrictions on its use. DHA should not be inhaled, ingested, or exposed to areas covered by mucous membranes including the lips, nose, and areas in and around the eye (from the top of the cheek to above the eyebrow) because the risks, if any, are unknown.

        Most sunless tanning sprays and lotions do not contain a skin protecting sunscreen. Make sure you apply an even coat of sunscreen to all exposed skin at least 30 minutes before going outdoors.

        More Information on Sunless Tanning Products
        Using Sunless Tanners:

        Before using a sunless tanning booth, ask the tanning salon these questions to make sure you will be protected:

        Will my eyes and the area surrounding them be protected?
        Will my nose, mouth, and ears be protected?
        Will I be protected from inhaling the tanning spray through my nose or mouth?
        If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” look for another salon. Otherwise you are putting yourself at risk for exposure to chemicals with potentially dangerous effects.

        You should also take precautions if you’re applying a self-tanner at home. Most self tanners contain the same DHA used in sunless tanning salons. Self-tanners are available in many forms, including lotions, creams, and sprays that you apply and let soak in to your skin. Follow the directions on the self-tanner label carefully and take care not to get the self-tanner in your eyes, nose, or mouth.

        http://www.fda.gov/radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/tanning/ucm116434.htm

  • Lara on 02.13.2012 at 1:21 pm

    I agree that a more nuanced discussion is needed here. Getting sun or UV rays of any kind cannot be ALL bad: why would humans be made with bare skin and designed to hunt, work, and walk around outdoors for at least half the day, if that were the case?
    But this article also makes me wonder, if white (Caucasian-Anglo) people are more at risk for getting melanoma, than what about Arab women or other women of color who are relatively fair-skinned, but tan in the tanning beds or sun? Is it less risky for this latter group because they are physically built to produce more melanin, to get darker, than White people?

  • RE: A non-tanner on 02.13.2012 at 1:34 pm

    Yes, it’s like the geisha tradition of using bird poop to remove makeup. Or wearing corsets to look thin, but they actually constrict one’s breathing.

  • j on 02.13.2012 at 1:37 pm

    this is old old old old old old old news, not worth a news story. “new report”? psht. post a warning about tanning rather than making it a news story.

    • German (new new new) news on 03.09.2012 at 8:06 pm

      Top German court upholds sunbed ban for under-18s

      http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-01-german-court-sunbed-under-18s.html

      “The German government adopted the law in 2009 after a study showing that people under the age of 30 had 75 percent more chance of contracting skin cancer from regular sunbed use than older people.

      The Constitutional Court dismissed a complaint brought by tanning studio operators, judging that the ban was justified on public health grounds.

      The court also threw out an appeal from a 17-year-old girl who said her human rights were affected by the ban.

      It said that child-protection legislation aimed to prevent minors from harming themselves.

      Germany is one of the top markets for artifical tanning, with 3,500 studios and 50,000 tanning cabins, if those in swimming pools, fitness centres and hotels are included.

      The sector employs some 32,000 people and the main manufacturers of tanning machines are headquartered in Germany.”

  • Anonymous on 02.13.2012 at 5:02 pm

    If you really want to look like you have fake-baked yourself, there are so many healthier ways to do it: get a spray tan, use self-tanner, wear bronzer. Even if there is a distinction between types of UV rays and even if a little bit of sun is beneficial, tanning beds increase the risk of cancer. You can’t argue with that.

    But is it really so bad to be fair-skinned? Personally, I am naturally very pale and I don’t understand the need to look tan.

  • dean on 02.14.2012 at 9:16 am

    What this story is missing is the motivation. Recall, Dr. Gilchrest fired Dr. Holick for writing the book called UV Advantage, which helped him win the Linus Pauling award. Her motivation… money. A quick check on Dr. Gilchrest’s history links her directly to the anti-sun cosmetics industry. Why else would you fire a colleague for presenting ground-breaking research on this century’s most profound health care nutrient? Dr. Gilchrest is one of the very few in the medical and scientific community that ‘refuses’ to embrace the natural truth… nature didn’t get it wrong, we need sunlight-induced vitamin D for good health.

    • nature did not give us tanning beds on 02.14.2012 at 2:49 pm

      unless I am greatly mistaken….

  • Doug on 02.14.2012 at 10:45 am

    Since Dr. Gilchrest quotes the oft misrepresented “75% increase risk” from the report issued by the World Health Organization. I trust given he publics perception of her credibility that she will confirm the following :

    The report contains data on 3 types of equipment.
    1) 96% increase risk – PHOTOTHERAPY UNITS used by DERMATOLOGISTS like Dr. Gilchrest
    2) 41% increase risk – HOME UNITS
    3) 6% increase risk – Commercial indoor tanning salons

    One must also remember that quoting a “%” of increase risk is a misleading way to incite fear. The real issue is relative risk. One must know what the original risk is first. In other words, if the original risk is 1 in a billion, then a 50% increase would be 1.5 in a billion. Hardly a behaviour changer. This is the relative risk, which is the truer measurement.

    Notice that the greatest risk according to the WHO is the from dermatologists equipment. Why no call for a ban of this type of equipment?? Perhaps they simply want their business back from the sun bed industry. The numbers speak for themselves! Check out this link from the American Academy of Dermatology?

    873,000 visits for UV light therapy in 1993-1994 down to 25,000 in 1997-1998

    http://www.eblue.org/article/S0190-9622%2802%2984958-1/abstract

    • more proof since WHO on 02.14.2012 at 2:26 pm

      two more studies that support the WHO recommendations
      ————————————————–
      http:// http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/20507845

      Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Jun;19(6):1557-68. Epub 2010 May 26.
      Indoor tanning and risk of melanoma: a case-control study in a highly exposed population.
      Lazovich D, Vogel RI, Berwick M, Weinstock MA, Anderson KE, Warshaw EM.
      Source

      CONCLUSIONS:

      In a highly exposed population, frequent indoor tanning increased melanoma risk, regardless of age when indoor tanning began. Elevated risks were observed across devices.
      IMPACT:

      This study overcomes some of the limitations of earlier reports and provides strong support for the recent declaration by the IARC that tanning devices are carcinogenic in humans.

      ———————————————————————
      http://aacrnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/increased-tanning-bed-use-increases-risk-for-deadly-skin-cancers/

      Increased Tanning Bed Use Increases Risk for Deadly Skin Cancers
      October 24, 2011
      M.D., Mingfeng Zhang

      * Indoor tanning use increased risk for three common skin cancers.

      * Risk increased 11 percent to 15 percent with use every four times per year.

      * Risk effect was more predominant during high school/college.

    • 6% increase? on 02.17.2012 at 1:16 am

      Hi Doug, are you referring to this by any chance..

      tanningtruth website quote (2-5b)
      “Closer analysis of IARC report data (by Dr. Mia Papas and Dr. Anne Chappelle) – when separated by unsupervised home tanning equipment verses usage in indoor tanning facilities and medical usage of tanning equipment in doctor’s offices – reveals that no statistically significant increase in risk (6 percent) was attributable to commercial tanning facility usage, while larger increases (40 percent and 96 percent) were attributable to home and medical usage of tanning equipment.”
      http://www.tanningtruth.com/

      If so, then it appears you are referencing the following unpublished medical abstract.

      http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/173/suppl_11.toc

      Abstracts of the 3rd North American Congress of Epidemiology, June 21-24, 2011 Montreal, Canada

      DIFFERENTIAL RISK OF MALIGNANT MELANOMA BY
      SUNBED EXPOSURE TYPE. *M A Papas, A H Chappelle,
      (Chappelle Toxicology Consulting, Chadds Ford, PA), and WB
      Grant (Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San
      Francisco, CA)

      • unpublished study rather, on 02.17.2012 at 4:14 am

        the abstract is published.

  • Barton D Bonn on 02.14.2012 at 12:45 pm

    7 billion people live on Earth, and not one of them knows the cause of melanoma. Master Dermatologist Doctor Duane Ackerman told your academy that just before his death. Yet for 70 years now, we have known that melanoma increases for indoor workers versus outdoor workers. We know that the rise in rates of melanoma began in the United States in the 1930′s. In the the 1930′s, half of all Americans worked outdoors in agriculture, where today its less than 3%. Life expectancy in the 1930′s was 60, where today it is nearly 80. Curiously, indoor tanning in the United States did not begin until the 1980′s. How did indoor tanning get blamed for a trend that began 50 years before the first tanning bed was ever commercialized for public use?

    Over 80% of melanoma deaths are people over 50 and most in their 70s and 80s, like most other deaths in our society. Human skin is an organ, and all organs eventually fail and cause death. What I fear. What we should all fear is death by fear mongers. We deserve reason, not fear.

    On non melanoma skin cancer: twice as many Americans die from water as do from non melanoma skin cancer. Should we place water in the same category as tobacco, like what you propose for UV light? Or should we agree that moderation is healthy and wise? Shouldn’t we all have a general knowledge of risks and benefits to all of life’s most common threats and opportunities?

    And finally, why is the American Academy of Dermatology in complete denial that human skin naturally processess UV light to make massive amounts of vitamin D which is necessary for optimum human health? Why would the self proclaimed experts be in complete denial of that well established fact? I believe a few dermatologists at the AAD are true believers, although misguided. Some, I suspect, are motivated purely by the success of their public relations fear campaign to drive young women into their clinics FOR THE MONEY. However, I believe many of our dermatologists are sickened by the politics of it all and just want to get on with their business of helping their patients and earning an honest living, yet this majority is silenced by the very charged and vocal few like Dr Gilchrest who seek the limelight to sound relevant. It all sounds a bit like Congress, doesn’t it?

    In my opinion, Dr Gilchrest you are not leading the charge to save Americans from melanoma but are the vanguard that led our nation into a vitamin D epidemic. 77% of Americans are vitamin D deficient due to a lack of UV producing sunlight. This epidemic is, possibly, prematurely killing over 300,000 Americans every year, now. You really need to do some research into vitamain D and human health and UV light’s role there. Your view is so myopic that it seems to blind your objectivity and judgement. Then you need to do some very serious soul searching to determine your proper role in America’s health debates. Will it be fear and money or truth and healthy living?

  • IOM on D “the data just aren’t there” on 02.14.2012 at 2:44 pm

    IOM Endorses Vitamin D, Calcium Only for Bone Health, Dispels Deficiency Claims

    http://www.sstans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/12-IOM-JAMA+editorial+1-111.pdf

    “7 billion people live on Earth, and not one of them knows the cause of melanoma.”

    Well Barton, Dr Holick acknowledges NMSC risk (or do we forget about NMSC these days? That may not be a wise move, as a recent systematic review of 21 non melanoma skin cancer studies (NMSC) concluded that strong, consistent evidence indicates a personal history of NMSC is associated with an increased risk of developing other malignancies.
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2010/06/18/1055-9965.EPI-10-0243.abstract

    Holick Quote..
    “The association of excessive exposure to solar ultraviolet B radiation and increased risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer is well documented.25
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715200/

    PS thank you Dr Gilchrest, you are one brave woman and skin cancer patients really appreciate it!

  • rose on 02.14.2012 at 4:51 pm

    people tan indoors so they don’t burn in the sun, especially before a vacation! People you have to remember our skin tans naturally to protect us from sunburn, also our skin makes vitamin D when it has u.v. light which we need to live! You are all being brain washed by big pharma so they can sell you sun screen which is now a billion dollar a year income for them! Please research vitamin D for all the benefits it does to your body, you’ll be amazed!

  • Maryellen Eisen on 02.14.2012 at 9:20 pm

    Despite new information about the risks associated with indoor tanning many young people still think that it is safe to indoor tan. The Committee on Energy and Commerce findings that the Indoor Tanning Association was providing misleading health information may be the key to this misconception. I applaud the congressional committee for undertaking this investigation and thank Dr. Gilchrest for once again taking a stand on this very important health issue. I believe that with one person dying every hour from melanoma, we must demand that consumers receive accurate information regarding the real health risks associated with indoor tanning.

  • D. L. Smith on 02.16.2012 at 12:48 am

    “It has been known for centuries that exposure of skin to the sun results in tanning, the skin’s major form of endogenous protection against subsequent skin damage from ultraviolet (UV) irradiation.”

    This quote came from a patent application made by Barbara Gilchrest, MD (and associates). http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5532001.html

    Since tanning is (according to Dr. Gilchrest) “the skin’s major form of endogenous protection against subsequent skin damage from ultraviolet (UV) irradiation” the question is whether it is better to develop a photoprotective tan (before, for instance, going on spring break) in the controlled environment of a professional indoor tanning salon or in the uncontrolled environment of sunlight or a home tanning bed?

  • 1996 eh.. on 02.16.2012 at 4:27 am

    I can’t speak for the good doctor, but I will say this..

    Research published on the official website for the European Union is telling us that radiation has a cumulative effect and that controlled less intense radiation exposures also pose a risk for cancer… http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/es/camas-solares/l-2/5-safe-limit-sunbeds.htm

    And the 2009 Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) report regarding the “health effects and risks arising from exposure to ultraviolet radiation from artificial tanning devices” reports the following ..

    “4.9 A Swiss study surveyed the emission spectra of sunbeds and found that
    while the spectrum was similar to natural sunlight, the emission of UVA was
    increased by 1,015-fold, with an effective UV index* of 13, compared with the
    UV index of 8.5 for sunlight at noon at intermediate latitudes (Gerber et al,
    2002). A survey of sunbed output showed variation in both UVA and UVB
    between beds, and also variation in output along the length of the tube in
    individual beds. The UVB output varied by a factor of 60 (Wright et al, 1996).
    4.10 Modern sunbeds are capable of producing irradiation of at least the
    equivalent of Mediterranean sunlight. Furthermore, there is evidence of
    widespread breach of the British Standard, BS EN 60335-2-27: 2003, with a
    significant percentage of sunbeds exceeding the limits for a type 3 device
    (Oliver et al, 2007).”

    “The UV radiation emissions of sunbeds are very variable and therefore it has been very difficult to account for this in the studies reported”

    “8.12 The health risks associated with sunbed use outweigh the perceived
    benefits. The majority of perceived benefits from sunbed use are psychological
    and cosmetic. The use of sunbeds is not associated with added protection for
    sun exposure.”

    http://www.comare.org.uk/documents/COMARE13thReport.pdf

  • D. L. Smith on 02.16.2012 at 1:15 pm

    Here are some “inconvenient facts” regarding the UVA (320 nm – 400 nm) emitted by sunlight, the sunbeds found in professional indoor tanning salons and the PUVA booths used by dermatologists.

    1.0 = Sunlight at noon on a typical Midwestern summer day (Baseline)
    1.2 = typical 100w sunbed
    5.8 = PUVA booth

    Thus, a 100w sunbed emits only 20% UVA compared to sunlight at noon on a typical Midwestern summer day while a PUVA booth emits 580% more UVA.

    Regarding the statement “The UV radiation emissions of sunbeds are very variable and therefore it has been very difficult to account for this in the studies reported” – what that means is that NONE of the studies can prove causation (of skin cancer) because there is no dose (initial & maximum) and/or cumulative dose data available. The “correlation” between sunbed use and skin cancer is, therefore, coincidental and not causal.

    • 20% more UVA than sunshine? on 02.16.2012 at 4:48 pm

      [D. L. Smith on 02.16.2012 at 1:44 pm wrote "The statement (above):"
      "Should have read: “Thus, a 100w sunbed emits only 20% more UVA compared to sunlight at noon on a typical Midwestern summer day while a PUVA booth emits 580% more UVA.]

      hardly reassuring. And a quick look at this hot little High Pressure number (proudly boasting ten 1330 High Pressure Facial Tanners and twenty 620 watt High Pressure Body Lamps) makes one think the definition of a typical sunbed may need an updating.
      http://www.hudsontanning.com/Equipment/360.htm

      As for – [what that means is that NONE of the studies can prove causation (of skin cancer) because there is no dose (initial & maximum) and/or cumulative dose data available. The “correlation” between sunbed use and skin cancer is, therefore, coincidental and not causal"]

      2006 IARC report states
      “This evidence is strongly suggestive and further studies could clarify our understanding of this association and allow more definitive conclusions.”

      (And – “Knowledge of levels of UV exposure during indoor tanning is very imprecise.”)

      http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/wrk/wrk1/index.php

      FURTHER STUDY
      http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2010/05/21/1055-9965.EPI-09-1249
      Comments by lead researcher, DeAnn Lazovich, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology and community health in the School of Public Health and Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota.
      “People who used indoor tanning devices were at about 74% increased risk of developing melanoma compared with persons who had never tanned indoors,” she said during a press conference. “We found that the risk of melanoma increased with the amount of tanning, and this was the case whether we assessed by hours, years of use or total numbers of sessions. For those in the highest categories of use — defined as 50 or more hours, more than 100 sessions or 10 or more years — their risk for melanoma was 2.5 to three times higher than never users.”

      We KNOW burns are bad (we can agree on that, can we not?)
      My daughter burned repeatedly in a tanning bed.
      Reports on the above referenced Minnesota study quote researchers as saying ” patients were more likely to have reported painful burns while tanning indoors (OR=2.28; 95% CI, 1.71-3.04), experienced a greater number of burns while using a tanning device or experienced painful sunburns at a time when they thought they were protected from the sun by indoor tanning (OR=2.00; 95% CI, 1.48-2.70).”
      http://www.hemonctoday.com/article.aspx?rid=65930

      And this Canadian Cancer Society survey of 600 citizens reports that just over third of the declared tanning bed users say they experienced “one or more sunburn from indoor tanning salon exposure.”
      http://www.cancergameplan.ca/pdf/B294_CCS-Indoor_Tanning_Research.pdf

      • just over one third on 02.17.2012 at 2:03 am

        Sorry D.L. Smith, my reply to you was missing a word before ‘third’ and should read as follows..

        This Canadian Cancer Society survey of 600 citizens reports that just over one third of the declared tanning bed users say they experienced “one or more sunburn from indoor tanning salon exposure.”
        http://www.cancergameplan.ca/pdf/B294_CCS-Indoor_Tanning_Research.pdf

        And while still on the subject of burning, the COMARE report gave a number of examples of why regulation is needed, including the following..

        “In 2009 a 14 year old suffered first degree burns to 70% of her body after
        spending 19 minutes on a coin-operated sunbed in an unstaffed outlet (BBC
        News, 2009).”

        http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8028898.stm
        Girl, 10, burned at tanning salon

        BBC:
        “When they got there the funfair was closed so they went into town and decided to use the tanning centre.
        “Kelly put £8 into the machine which gave her 16 minutes on the sun bed.”She was under-age but there was no staff there to stop her from using it.

        And the Canadian Paediatric Society has recently called on the Canadian Government to regulate indoor tanning and ban teenagers. They also recommend the creation of a tax; harmonized with tobacco levies. And that unsupervised commercial tanning bed operations and the use of coin-operated machines should be banned.
        http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/AM/AH12-01.htm

        And lest we forget.. New South Wales Australia has announced they will totally ban commercial tanning units effective December 31, 2014.”All the data shows that the Australian health system spends more money on the diagnosis and treatment of skin cancer than on any other cancer.”

  • D. L. Smith on 02.16.2012 at 1:44 pm

    The statement (above):

    “Thus, a 100w sunbed emits only 20% UVA compared to sunlight at noon on a typical Midwestern summer day while a PUVA booth emits 580% more UVA.”

    Should have read:

    “Thus, a 100w sunbed emits only 20% more UVA compared to sunlight at noon on a typical Midwestern summer day while a PUVA booth emits 580% more UVA.

  • Matthew on 02.16.2012 at 3:55 pm

    Did California ban PUVA equipment use for teens under 18?

    • mark on 02.16.2012 at 4:56 pm

      PUVA lamps are dermotologist lamps and not available to tanning salons but are used on people under 18 and will never have to worry about bans as they are exempt from any regulation because they are used by doctors or bought for home use with a doctors prescription.
      Here is some interesting info…..
      Straight from the Natbiocorp website, the company that makes and sells PUVA lamps.

      Side Effects

      Short-term side effects when using PUVA to treat psoriasis include skin redness, headache, nausea, itching, burning, the spread of psoriasis to skin that was not affected before, nausea from the medication, and squamous cell carcinoma.

      Long-term side effects when using PUVA to treat psoriasis include:

      Premature skin damage associated with sun exposure.
      Discolored spots on the skin.
      Overgrowth of the scaly layer of skin caused by exposure to sunlight (actinic keratosis).
      Nonmelanoma skin cancer.
      Cataracts. Cataracts may be avoided by wearing goggles during UVA treatments and sunglasses that block UV light when outdoors.

      Notice there is no mention of Melanoma? And these lamps are 580% stronger than tanning salons lamps.
      They also use narrow band UVB lamps again something not available to tanning salons.
      Here is info about the benefits of phototherapy according to the manufacturers who sell home and doctors equiptment.

      Benefits of Ultraviolet Light

      Ultraviolet light comes from the sun’s rays but is invisible to humans.

      Two of the three forms of ultraviolet light, UVA and UVB rays, have been well studied. There are both benefits and risks of exposure of these rays to humans. Significant exposure can damage a person’s skin and eyes. Long-term damaging effects of exposure include premature aging, wrinkling, skin damage, and sometimes skin cancer.

      Ultraviolet light from the sun also has many benefits:

      Improve or heal skin conditions such as psoriasis
      Protect from cancer of breast, colon, ovary, bladder, stomach, and prostate gland
      Converts ergosterol in skin into Vitamin D, strengthening bones, muscles and immune system
      Stimulates pineal gland to produce the trypamine, melatonin, which alters brain chemistry to improve mood

      UVA rays from sunlight are most intense in the morning and afternoon. These rays go right through window glass and can penetrate deeply into the skin.

      UVB rays are most intense around the middle of the day when the sun is brightest, between about 10 :00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in most areas. Window glass blocks these rays. UVB rays affect the outer layer of the skin and can cause sunburns.

      Both UVA and UVB lights have been used for many years as a treatment for psoriasis. More interesting info found at natbiocorp website just add www and dot com before and after the name.

    • California? on 02.16.2012 at 5:18 pm

      no, it states here “The act does not apply to a phototherapy device, as defined, used by or under the direct supervision of a qualified physician and surgeon”
      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_746_bill_20111009_chaptered.pdf

      The California amendment was about teaching all children UV safety. PUVA (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9867) patients are under the care of a medical doctor.

    • Matthew on 02.17.2012 at 4:03 pm

      So any risk is removed from the PUVA equipment because they are under the care of a medical doctor? And that now makes the equipment “safe”?

      • um no on 02.17.2012 at 6:27 pm

        “So any risk is removed from the PUVA equipment because they are under the care of a medical doctor? And that now makes the equipment “safe”?”

        I am not a PUVA patient, but if I were, I would expect my DOCTOR would have to explain the risks. Then I would research and think REAL hard before making that decision. If my CHILD needed PUVA I would do all of the above times two. (Who said anything about “safe”?)

        What I was trying to do was get you back on topic… (you know, California:)

  • solargeek on 02.16.2012 at 7:37 pm

    1. Post above by Bart Bonn 02.14.2012 is accurate and says it all.

    2. Comment by IARC that irradiance measurements from tanning beds is very imprecise simply means they are too scientifically challenged to understand the weighted and unweighted W/m² UVR values from Optronics spectralradiometers.

    3. IARC “study” demonstrated nothing other than bombarding skin type 1′s (can’t tan always burns) with too much UV increases their relative risk of skin cancer. No different than Dr Forbes shining too many MEDs of UV on hairless albino mice and (gasp!) “proving” it causes lesions.

    4. Quoting the infamous “75% increase” in melanoma from IARC without quantifying absolute risk at 1 vs 1.75 in absolute numbers borderlines on criminal imo. False advertizing re FTC standards at the very least.

    5.

    • scientifically challenged ? on 02.17.2012 at 2:08 pm

      All skin types get skin cancer, melanoma killed Bob Marley 30 years ago.
      http://www.metro.co.uk/music/863017-rip-bob-marley-twitter-marks-30th-anniversary-of-reggae-icons-death

      And the NCI ( National Cancer Institute) answers the question here..

      “Is it true that only people with light skin get skin cancer?

      No. Anyone can get skin cancer. It’s more common among people with a light (fair) skin tone, but skin cancer can affect anyone. Skin cancer can affect both men and women.”
      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/prevention/skin/anyone-can-get-skin-cancer

      And here we see a quote from an industry website that might speak to the complexity of this issue.

      “If you want to go by hours the 600 to 800 hours is a fair benchmark. Since it is a guessing game you can choose when you would actually like to change them. It is “your guess”.

      See, you can not really get a solid answer to this question of hours (even though myself and others have answered it in prior posts) due to so many variables that you cannot control such as the lamp itself from batch to batch, incoming voltage, ambient temperature, session frequency, session duration, equipment design, geometry, cooling (heat extraction capability), component degredation, solarization rate of filterglass and reflectors, not to mention client size and client skin type, other client descrepencies such as alternate UV exposure that can desensitize, medications and diet that can sensitize…

      The list goes on and on. This has gone on since the first lamp has been illuminated.”

      http://www.tantoday.com/forums/high-pressure-equipment/44714-measuring-high-pressure-lamp-performance-7.html (post 64)

      • solargeek on 02.17.2012 at 7:27 pm

        Now YOU are being the “troll” haha. You took this entirely out of context in the thread referenced:

        ———————— paste ————————————-
        “If you want to go by hours the 600 to 800 hours is a fair benchmark. Since it is a guessing game you can choose when you would actually like to change them. It is “your guess”.

        See, you can not really get a solid answer to this question of hours (even though myself and others have answered it in prior posts) due to so many variables that you cannot control such as the lamp itself from batch to batch, incoming voltage, ambient temperature, session frequency, session duration, equipment design, geometry, cooling (heat extraction capability), component degredation, solarization rate of filterglass and reflectors, not to mention client size and client skin type, other client descrepencies such as alternate UV exposure that can desensitize, medications and diet that can sensitize…

        The list goes on and on. This has gone on since the first lamp has been illuminated.”

        http://www.tantoday.com/forums/high-pressure-equipment/44714-measuring-high-pressure-lamp-performance-7.html
        ——————— end paste ———————————

        The whole point of the full thread was to note that it is a “guessing game” to use lamp hours rather than UV meters to determine tanning bed irradiance.

        You cherry picked a paragraph which (if read in full context of thread) proves the opposite of what you (and IARC) think: That “irradiance measurements from tanning beds is very imprecise”.

        Even the FDA agrees such measurements are very precise given proper metrology with consistent process… thus (I say) beyond the technical expertise of IARC and most all of you UV nay-sayers.

        The whole problem with scare tactics of orgs publishing so called “studies” (especially non peer reviewed) is that they have NO data regarding Eeff dose rate or dose of UVR they consider unsafe. Nor do they comprehend family history and many other variables affecting risk of skin cancer.

        IMO… 90% of this controversy is driven by conflict of interest (pharma money, etc) and 10% by altruism.

        • too easy on 02.20.2012 at 12:01 am

          [Now YOU are being the “troll” haha]

          –google some of the topics at hand and see what YOU find. (Hint – Optronics spectralradiometers high pressure…)

          [The whole point of the full thread was to note that it is a “guessing game” to use lamp hours rather than UV meters to determine tanning bed irradiance.
          You cherry picked a paragraph which (if read in full context of thread) proves the opposite of what you (and IARC) think: That “irradiance measurements from tanning beds is very imprecise”.]

          –It appears to me that not every salon measures UV radiation with ‘proper meteorology’. Does that reassure you then that the industry (as a whole) delivers a consistent product?
          Not me – my child’s skin burned in a salon tanning bed. But she kept going, and kept on burning, regardless. Her sister tells me she did not burn, but she went often for a time. Not surprising then that this research gives me nightmares- (Pay attention to the ‘four visits’..)

          http://aacrnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/increased-tanning-bed-use-increases-risk-for-deadly-skin-cancers/
          Increased Tanning Bed Use Increases Risk for Deadly Skin Cancers
          Mingfeng Zhang, M.D., research fellow in the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.
          “For this cohort study, Zhang and colleagues followed 73,494 nurses who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study II from 1989 to 2009. They tracked tanning bed use during high school and college and when women were aged between 25 and 35 years old. They also tracked the overall average usage during both periods in relation to basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma.
          Results showed that tanning bed use increased skin cancer risk with a dose-response effect. More tanning bed exposure led to higher risks. Compared with nonusers, the risk for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma increased by 15 percent for every four visits made to a tanning booth per year; the risk for melanoma increased by 11 percent.

          “The use during high school/college had a stronger effect on the increased risk for basal cell carcinoma compared with use during ages 25 to 35,” Zhang said.”

          –One more thing before I move on. In Dec 2010 the FDA issued the following warning letter..

          http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm238811.htm

          Department of Health and Human Services
          quote…
          “WARNING LETTER – PROGRAM DISAPPROVAL
          Specifically, your sunlamp products fail to comply with:
          1. 21 CFR 1010.2(c) Certification
          a. The firm’s sunlamp products failed to be certified based upon a quality control and testing program in accordance with good manufacturing practices. Specifically, because your firm did not maintain any manufacturing quality control or test records for sunlamp products entered into commerce, there is no evidence that an adequate quality control and testing program exists which ensures your sunlamp products comply with the performance standard.”

          ————————————–

          [The whole problem with scare tactics of orgs publishing so called “studies” (especially non peer reviewed) is that they have NO data regarding Eeff dose rate or dose of UVR they consider unsafe]

          –NO data perhaps because no one is willing to volunteer?
          IMO the onus needs to be on the indoor tanning industry to prove safety if they want to continue to market their carcinogenic product to children. BCC and SCC still count you know, they are still cancer.
          In fact, a google search of bcc prostetic nose procedure brings us to this melanoma forum where it seems even melanoma patients fear this NMSC
          http://www.melanoma.org/community/off-topic-forum/just-being-nosey

          [...Nor do they comprehend family history and many other variables affecting risk of skin cancer.]

          Oh and you do?
          (You would have needed a crystal ball to predict my family’s family history. But then, you appear to think you know everything, so maybe they just chose the wrong salon…you tell me.)

  • Casey G on 02.17.2012 at 12:53 pm

    After reading this article and the many different responses to the article, I would like to include my story! I am a junior at Boston University. I just transfered here from Florida where I previously attended college and grew up. Once I entered college, I noticed many of my friends began tanning in tanning salons. Growing up in South Florida I had never used a tanning bed since I was always able to tan outside. After trying it, I began tanning on a regular basis for 2 years. After moving to Boston in the summer, I continued tanning about 3 times a week. I grew up living 1 mile from the beach and I tan very easily so I never really thought much about the negative effects from the tanning beds. My father, who is a doctor, called me up one day and informed me about a study that had recently come out. He told me that women between the ages of 18-30 were being diagnosed with a deadly form of skin cancer called melanoma. Each of the women that had been diagnosed had used tanning beds. He also told me that people who used tanning beds were 75% more likely to get melanoma. After hearing what he said, I decided to do some research on the topic for a class project. All the information and statistics that I had read was enough for me to stop tanning. Not only that, but my grandfather had passed away from melanoma, so it ran in my family. There are many different theories and justifications that people say about tanning. When it comes down to the bottom line, tanning in a booth is just not natural or healthy for your skin. There is a high concentration of UV rays that are very close to your body which, many studies have shown, causes cancer. There is no way around that fact.If that is not enough to deter you, tanning causes wrinkles and sun spots which are irreversible. Tanning beds are also a very dirty and can transmit different kinds of bacteria such as E.coli and ring worm if not cleaned properly. I have completely stopped tanning for about 4 months now. Many people have their own perceptions and opinions on tanning, but I wanted to post my story to maybe make someone think twice about tanning beds. Just remember, these women that were diagnosed with melanoma are not in their old age, they are young women that are suppose to be healthy. If cancer is not enough to make you think twice, think wrinkles, melanoma, sun spots, and ringworm. Is that worth it to you? If you are adamant on looking tan for a special occasion there are always spray tans! Yes vitamin D is healthy for you but remember, you get sun exposure whenever you are outside, including just walking from class to class! It is important to be smart not matter if you are outside tanning at the beach, or if you are just walking from class to class. Too much of a good think can turn out to be bad, in this case it is sun exposure.

  • HP - 30% to 50% more UVA than SUN? on 02.17.2012 at 2:57 pm

    why that’s worse!

    You ask ” why did you fail to comment about the very high level of UVA emitted by PUVA units? ..”

    actually, I said the following..

    “The California amendment was about teaching all children UV safety. PUVA (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9867) patients are under the care of a medical doctor.”

    In answer to your second question..”Are you unaware of the data Epidemiologist Dr. Mia Papas presented in June at the World Congress of Epidemiology showing that the World Health Organization data actually indicts medical phototherapy units and not commercial sunbeds?”

    Nope no data there. Just this abstract.
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/173/suppl_11.toc

    Abstracts of the 3rd North American Congress of Epidemiology, June 21-24, 2011 Montreal, Canada

    DIFFERENTIAL RISK OF MALIGNANT MELANOMA BY
    SUNBED EXPOSURE TYPE. *M A Papas, A H Chappelle,
    (Chappelle Toxicology Consulting, Chadds Ford, PA), and WB
    Grant (Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San
    Francisco, CA)

    I have seen it referred to before though..

    JCTA- “Show us the proof ” – Dec 17,2011

    “World Health Organization data show no risk for commercial sunbeds when you isolate the people who tanned uncontrolled at home or in medical facilities (Papas 2011). Further, when you remove Skin Type 1 people from the data, it also results in a non-significant risk (Grant 2010). So this is about knowing your skin type, not what age you are. No health organization has refuted these data.”

    Clever last line that.. “No health organization has refuted these data” But apparently no health organization CAN refute unpublished data…

    Another reference…JCTA – “Commercial tanning salons not the culprit” – Feb 01, 2011
    http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Letters-to-editor/2011-02-01/article-2188238/Commercial-tanning-salons-not-the-culprit/1

    “Re ‘Tanning beds and the risks for youth’ (The Guardian, Jan. 26, 2011): The Joint Canadian Tanning Association (JCTA) has been working with provincial governments across Canada to develop comprehensive regulations for the commercial tanning industry. These proposed regulations go much further than simply an age restriction for minors”

    “Recent studies that show that sunbeds provide a risk of 75 per cent are flawed. These studies contain data for people that tan at both commercial facilities and at home and use medical units. Home tanning is uncontrolled and provides a much greater risk factor for melanoma and medical units can give burning exposures. When you remove these home and medical units’ data from the study the new risk factor is not 75 per cent but just six per cent, not even relevant, for those under age 35.”

    not. even. relevant.
    It is my opinion as a parent that any risk is indeed relevant.

  • D. L. Smith on 02.17.2012 at 4:36 pm

    To save you some time, shown below are the Papas studies. You will note that the conclusion is that there is no link between commercial sunbed exposure and CMM and that there is a link between medical exposures and CMM.

    Differential Risk of Malignant Melanoma by Sunbed Exposure Type
    Mia A. Papas, PhD1, Anne H. Chappelle, PhD1, William B. Grant, PhD 2
    1Chappelle Toxicology Consulting, 2Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center

    SUMMARY

    1. Detailed exposure information is a critical limitation for observational studies of sunbed usage.

    2. The reported association between indoor tanning and risk of melanoma may be biased by exposure misclassification.

    3. When professional sunbed usage is considered independent of home and medical exposures there is no association with melanoma.

    4. Consistent with the data examining risk among all ages, the increased risk among those with first use under the age of 30 years is evident only among home tanning bed users.

    5. Differences in dose and usage patterns between unregulated home tanning and indoor tanning salons merits further study.

    The Affect of Sunbed Location on Melanoma Risk:A Pooled Analysis
    Papas MA, Chappelle AH, Grant WB

    Summary

    A 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer meta-analysis reported a “limited” and “weak” positive association between sunbed use and cutaneous malignant melanoma (meta-odds ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.0, 1.3). That same review also reported a positive association between ever-use of a
    sunbed and cutaneous malignant melanoma (meta-odds ratio = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.35-2.26) for first exposure to sunbeds before 35 years of age. This figure has been widely referenced, yet the distinction of the exact characterization of sunbed usage, as detailed in the data collection, limits the interpretability of these findings and raises further questions.

    Usage of unsupervised home sunbeds and sunbeds used by doctors as medical devices make up half of the cases reported in the data in addition to commercial sunbed usage.

    This contamination of the data appear to significantly affect the results. When commercial sunbed usage is considered independent of home and medical usage of sunbeds, the IARC review data no longer suggest a significant association.

    • no study links? on 02.17.2012 at 7:10 pm

      To save me some time, how about you play fair. I have shared links to newer research that addresses the IARC confounders. (And the risk is not just melanoma, even Holick knows that.)
      But all you do is quote numbers with no meat…

      The study abstract and link to this quote is below.

      “Distinct differences exist between unsupervised use of home sunbeds, regulated usage of professional salon sunbeds, and sunbeds used by doctors as medical devices.”

      – REGULATED professional salon sunbeds are what is needed, they are not the status quo.

      http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/173/suppl_11.toc

      DIFFERENTIAL RISK OF MALIGNANT MELANOMA BY
      SUNBED EXPOSURE TYPE. *M A Papas, A H Chappelle,
      (Chappelle Toxicology Consulting, Chadds Ford, PA), and WB
      Grant (Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San
      Francisco, CA)
      Background: A 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
      meta-analysis reported a weak positive association between sunbed use and
      cutaneous malignant melanoma (meta-odds ratio ¼ 1.2, 95% confidence
      interval: 1.0, 1.3). The lack of detailed measurement of sunbed usage is
      a key limitation of this meta-analysis. Distinct differences exist between
      unsupervised use of home sunbeds, regulated usage of professional salon
      sunbeds, and sunbeds used by doctors as medical devices. The resulting
      misclassification may bias reported estimates for overall sunbed exposure
      and risk of melanoma. Methods: We abstracted additional data from the 19
      studies identified by the IARC meta-analysis. Sunbed exposure was classified
      with three alternative categories not considered by the published metaanalysis:
      home, professional salon, and medical office. Summary odds ratios
      (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed by pooled
      analysis. Results: Five studies had data available on the type and setting
      of tanning bed usage most commonly reported. The pooled OR for ever-use
      of home sunbeds was 1.4 (95% CI: 1.2, 1.7); while that for ever-use of
      sunbeds in a professional salon was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.9, 1.2); and that for
      medical office sunbeds was 2.0 (95% CI: 0.9, 4.3). Conclusion: Detailed
      exposure information is a critical limitation for observational studies of
      sunbed usage. The reported association between sunbed usage and risk of
      melanoma may be biased by exposure misclassification. When professional
      sunbed usage is considered independent of home and medical exposures
      there is no association with melanoma.

  • D. L. Smith on 02.19.2012 at 4:31 pm

    I didn’t know I was going to have to do ALL of the work for you. Both Papas citations were sent to your BU email address.

    Please comment on the papers below and explain why PUVA therapy shouldn’t be banned for all under 18 patients.

    J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Jan 18. [Epub ahead of print]
    The risk of squamous cell and basal cell cancer associated with psoralen and ultraviolet A therapy: A 30-year prospective study. Stern RS; PUVA Follow-Up Study.
    Department of Dermatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    By 1977, psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) was established as a highly effective therapy for psoriasis. Because of concerns about potential long-term adverse effects, particularly cancer, the PUVA Follow-Up Study was established to assess long-term risk and benefits of PUVA.
    OBJECTIVE:
    We sought to determine the association of certain squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) risk with exposure to PUVA.
    METHODS:
    For nearly 30 years, this prospective cohort study of 1380 patients with psoriasis first treated with PUVA in 1975 to 1976 documented exposures and incident events including biopsy-proven skin cancers.
    RESULTS:
    From 1975 to 2005, 351 of 1380 (25%) cohort patients developed 2973 biopsy-proven SCC and 330 (24%) developed 1729 BCCs. After adjusting for age, gender, and significant confounders, the risk of developing one or more SCC in a year was strongly associated with total number of PUVA treatments (350-450 vs <50 treatments, incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 6.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.41-8.20). When all tumors are included this risk is significantly higher (IRR = 20.92, 95% CI = 14.08-31.08). Corresponding risks for BCC were much lower (person counts IRR = 3.09, 95% CI = 2.36-4.06; tumor counts IRR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.47-3.05).
    LIMITATIONS:
    This was an observational prospective study of a cohort with severe psoriasis. An unknown factor associated with higher dose exposure to PUVA in our cohort that was not included in our analysis could account for the observed associations.
    CONCLUSION:
    Exposure to more than 350 PUVA treatments greatly increases the risk of SCC. Exposure to fewer than 150 PUVA treatments has, at most, modest effects on SCC risk. Even high-dose exposure to PUVA does not greatly increase BCC risk. The risks of SCC in long-term PUVA-treated patients should be considered in determining the risk of this therapy relative to other treatments for severe psoriasis.

    J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001 May;44(5):755-61.
    The risk of melanoma in association with long-term exposure to PUVA.
    Stern RS; PUVA Follow up Study.
    Department of Dermatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Oral methoxsalen (psoralen) and ultraviolet A radiation (PUVA) is a highly effective therapy for psoriasis and many other skin conditions. It is carcinogenic. Previously we reported an increased risk of melanoma that first emerged 15 years after first treatment.
    OBJECTIVE:
    Our purpose is to present additional data concerning the associations of previous exposure to PUVA, the passage of time, and the risk of malignant melanoma.
    METHODS:
    We have prospectively studied a cohort of 1380 patients first treated with PUVA in 1975 and 1976. We have documented the occurrence of melanoma and in this report compare the observed and expected incidence of melanoma in this cohort, particularly melanomas developing since our earlier report (ie, after March 1996).
    RESULTS:
    Since 1975, 23 patients have developed 26 invasive or in situ cutaneous melanomas. In an average of 2.25 years since our last report, we detected 7 additional invasive melanomas (incidence rate ratio, 8.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.4-17.3).
    CONCLUSION:
    Beginning 15 years after first exposure to PUVA, an increased risk of melanoma is observed in our cohort of PUVA-treated patients. This risk is greater in patients exposed to high doses of PUVA, appears to be increasing with the passage of time, and should be considered in determining the risks and benefits of this therapy.

    • what are you on about .. on 02.20.2012 at 4:29 am

      “I didn’t know I was going to have to do ALL of the work for you. Both Papas citations were sent to your BU email address.”

      -that would be impossible..

      “Please comment on the papers below and explain why PUVA therapy shouldn’t be banned for all under 18 patients…..”

      -The congressional report was titled “The False and Misleading Health Information Provided to Teens by the Indoor Tanning Industry”

      Not “How bad is PUVA” … surely you get that? (Others will)

      http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/new-report-reveals-indoor-tanning-industry-s-false-and-misleading-practices

      • D. L. Smith on 02.20.2012 at 12:32 pm

        Let me see if I understand what you said. You don’t want to talk about a known “cause” of skin cancer (PUVA therapy) but would rather discuss a false, deceptive, “fatally biased” and misleading congressional report. OK.

        Apparent ‘Sting’ Survey Targets Teen Tanning
        Friday, July 29th, 2011
        A New Jersey tanning business owner received a phone call July 21 from what is apparently a sting operation attempting to get tanning salon employees to tell an operator they would allow a teen-age caller to tan in their salon without a parent’s consent.

        Smart Tan member Courtney Gilmartin, owner of International Tan in Point Pleasant, NJ, took a call from a woman who alleged she was 16, was new to the area and wanted to tan even though her parents would not allow it.

        “I knew from her voice she was not 16,” Gilmartin said, adding that the call originated from a Washington, D.C, phone number with a 202 area code, which made her even more suspicious. “But I let her go on.”

        Gilmartin read her the New Jersey regulations, which require a tanner aged 14-18 to bring a parent to the salon with them prior to tanning. “She was definitely trying to get me to say something,” Gilmartin said.

        Despite clearly being told she couldn’t tan without a parent’s permission, the caller kept re-structuring the question to try to get Gilmartin to re-phrase her answer. “She went on to say, ok, I have really fair skin, so am I still allowed to go tanning?” Gilmartin said. “I said I’d have to see you in person. That we’d need to learn your skin type and see if you are skin type I.”

        That’s when Gilmartin knew she was definitely being toyed with. “And then after that she said, ‘I have acne and would tanning help?’ It was just so by book. No 16-year-old would ask questions that way.”

        So Gilmartin decided to end the charade. “I asked her, ‘So you’re 16. What’s your date of birth?’ It was silent for a second and she fumbled around and I heard someone in the background, and then she hung up. I could tell she was in her 20s.”

        Similar sting operations have been used in the past to generate survey-studies alleging that parental consent laws in the tanning industry aren’t working. Some of these surveys have alleged that some salons will allow teenagers to tan without parental consent — but none of the studies actually involved teenagers actually entering a salon and being led to a tanning bed to tan.

        Gilmartin called the 202-area-code number back. A man answered and alleged he was a New Jersey-based cleaning business. When pressed for details about the call she received, the man hung up.

        Smart Tan believes the survey questions as asked to Gilmartin, if used to produce a survey-study, would be fraudulent. “It does not appear the bogus caller followed a standard script — which would be key to uniformity in this kind of study and is standard procedure in collecting survey data,” Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. “Because it appears this survey is being done not in a random fashion, but as a fishing expedition designed to support an agenda, any institutional review board should reject any data collected from this project and those involved could actually be liable for legal or other disciplinary action.”

        https://smarttan.com/news/index.php/2011/07/

        Teen Tanning Sting Questioned
        Friday, February 3rd, 2012
        A New Jersey tanning business owner reported in July 2011 that an undercover investigator who phoned her salon alleging to be a 16-year-old prospective customer badgered her into attempting to make false statements about tanning — a charge that now appears to be leveled at an investigative report issued Feb. 1 by four U.S. Congress members and which could make the report’s findings fraudulent.

        Smart Tan member Courtney Gilmartin, owner of International Tan in Point Pleasant, NJ, took a call July 21, 2011 from a woman who alleged she was 16, was new to the area and wanted to tan even though her parents would not allow it. Gilmartin knew the call was bogus and that it originated from a Washington, D.C., phone number and reported the suspicious call to Smart Tan, which ran a story on SmartTan.com July 29, 2011.

        Here is that story in the SmartTan.com archive.

        After the story ran, Smart Tan members nationwide reported receiving suspicious calls from the same Washington, D.C., phone number. Reports to Smart Tan indicated the callers did not follow a set script, asked completely different questions to different salons and typically re-directed questions attempting to get positive answers — charges that, if connected to the report issued by four Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee this week, could constitute academic fraud.

        The report issued Tuesday alleged that indoor tanning facility operators mislead clients about the risks and benefits of UV exposure and indoor tanning — calling for regulators to enact an under-18 ban on indoor tanning. Smart Tan reported Wednesday that the report itself contained factually inaccurate information. Here is the link to that story.

        To produce the report, congressional staff made phone calls to 300 tanning salons nationwide alleging on the phone that they were 16-year-old women who wanted to tan. Callers did not actually visit a tanning salon. The sample group was not random, nor did the survey appear to follow any uniform script, which is standard practice for such a survey. (See standards for this type of market research as published by the Marketing Research Association:).

        Based on the reports to Smart Tan in July 2011 it is clear no script was followed and appears that investigators randomly re-directed questions to mine for positive answers, which would be fraudulent.

        “I knew from her voice she was not 16,” Gilmartin told Smart Tan in July. “But I let her go on.” Gilmartin read her the New Jersey regulations, which require a tanner aged 14-18 to bring a parent to the salon with them prior to tanning. “She was definitely trying to get me to say something,” Gilmartin said.

        Despite clearly being told she couldn’t tan without a parent’s permission, the caller kept re-structuring the question to try to get Gilmartin to re-phrase her answer. “She went on to say, ok, I have really fair skin, so am I still allowed to go tanning?” Gilmartin said in the July interview. “I said I’d have to see you in person. That we’d need to learn your skin type and see if you are skin type I.”

        That’s when Gilmartin knew she was definitely being toyed with. “And then after that she said, ‘I have acne and would tanning help. It was just so by book. No 16-year-old would ask questions that way.”

        So Gilmartin decided to end the charade. “I asked her, ‘So you’re 16. What’s your date of birth?’ It was silent for a second and she fumbled around and I heard someone in the background, and then she hung up. I could tell she was in her 20s.”

        Gilmartin called the 202-area-code number back. A man answered and alleged he was a New Jersey-based cleaning business. When pressed for details about the call she received, the man hung up.

        Smart Tan believes the survey questions as asked to Gilmartin and others completely destroy the credibility of the Report issued Tuesday. “It does not appear the bogus caller followed a standard script — which would be key to uniformity in this kind of study and is standard procedure in collecting survey data,” Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. “Because it appears this survey was not done not in a random fashion, but as a fishing expedition designed to support an agenda, they data collected from this project should be dismissed and those involved could actually be liable for legal or other disciplinary action.”

        https://smarttan.com/news/index.php/teen-tanning-sting-questioned/

        In case you care to review the “standards” for conducting marketing research (and to see how/why the House study violated them), click on the link below.

        • Oh I want to talk about a known cause for cancer alright on 02.20.2012 at 3:59 pm

          but you misunderstand.

          When I asked for data, you said ” Both Papas citations were sent to your BU email address.” I then responded ” -that would be impossible.. ”

          I see now I need to fill in the dots…

          I do not work at BU

          Now, getting back to business, do you have any studies that conclude the application of UV radiation is harmless? And do any of these include the use of “Tanning accelerators”? (Or children?)

          Some quotes from FDA Consumer Information..
          —————————————————–
          http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications/ucm126246.htm

          Some people do things that make tanning beds even more dangerous, like:

          • Not wearing goggles or wearing goggles that are loose or cracked.
          • Staying in the bed for the maximum time that is listed on the label.
          • Staying in the bed longer than recommended for your skin type. Check the label for exposure times.
          • Using medicines or cosmetics that make you more sensitive to UV rays. Check with your doctor, nurse or pharmacist.”

          “Some lotions and pills claim to make you tan faster. There is no proof that these work. “Tanning accelerators” are not approved by the FDA.”

          ————————————–

          FDA cont. (Same link as above)

          FDA and the National Cancer Institute recommend avoiding tanning beds.

          • All tanning beds put you at higher risk of skin cancer.
          • NCI reports that women who use tanning beds more than once a month are 55 percent more likely to develop melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.
          FDA has standards for sunlamp products. All sunlamp products must have:
          • a warning label
          • an accurate timer
          • an emergency stop control
          • an exposure schedule
          • protective goggles

          —————————————————-
          And Centers for Disease Control..
          http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2011/jul/10_0153.htm

          Warning Signs Observed in Tanning Salons in New York City: Implications for Skin Cancer Prevention

          Corey H. Brouse, EdD; Charles E. Basch, PhD; Alfred I. Neugut, MD, PhD

          PEER REVIEWED
          Abstract

          Use of artificial tanning may be contributing to the increased incidence of skin cancer. Federal law requires warning signs to inform consumers about health risks. All of the tanning facilities in New York City were assessed for compliance with this law during April and May 2010. More than one-third of the 224 tanning machines observed in 47 of the 85 facilities visited did not have any warning signs posted, and signs were difficult to see in many others.

          Research on compliance with various indoor tanning regulations is limited, but studies suggest low compliance with posting the regulations (9-11). This noncompliance may impede informed decision making by consumers and pose a threat to public health. This study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of warnings in all of the tanning facilities in New York City.

          9 – 11 ( actually 12)

          9
          Heilig LF, D’Ambrosia R, Drake AL, Dellavalle RP, Hester EJ. A case for informed consent? Indoor UV tanning facility operator’s provision of health risks information (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2005;16(5):557-60.

          CONCLUSION

          Tanning facility operators frequently misinformed patrons of indoor UV exposure risks. The provision of informed consent by indoor tanning facility operators needs improved adaptation by the tanning industry as a standard for customer service.

          10
          Mayer JA, Hoerster KD, Pichon LC, Rubio DA, Woodruff SI, Forster JL. Enforcement of state indoor tanning laws in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis 2008;5(4). http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2008/oct/07_0194.htm. Accessed May 19, 2010.

          Conclusion
          The relatively low rates of annual inspections and citations are of concern. We recommend that future studies assess whether legislation, enforcement practices, or a combination of the 2 affects the practices of indoor tanning facilities or of consumers.

          11
          Hester EJ, Heilig LF, D’Ambrosia R, Drake AL, Schilling LM, Dellavalle RP. Compliance with youth access regulations for indoor UV tanning. Arch Dermatol 2005;141(8):959-62.

          CONCLUSION

          Tanning facilities in 4 states offered price incentives directed at youths. State youth access regulations were associated with decreased youth access to indoor tanning. High compliance levels in states with long-standing youth access regulations (Illinois and Wisconsin) demonstrate the potential for successful tanning industry youth access regulation.

          12
          Culley CA, Mayer JA, Eckhardt L, Busic AJ, Eichenfield LF, Sallis JF, et al. Compliance with federal and state legislation by indoor tanning facilities in San Diego.J Am Acad Dermatol 2001;44(1):53-60.

          CONCLUSION

          The investigators recommend instituting mandatory, comprehensive training for operators, as well as systematic compliance monitoring with enforcement of penalties for noncompliance.

          ——————————————–

          • D. L. Smith on 02.21.2012 at 12:45 pm

            You said (in an earlier post): “-The congressional report was titled “The False and Misleading Health Information Provided to Teens by the Indoor Tanning Industry” Not “How bad is PUVA” … surely you get that (I do!)? Others will. (But evidently YOU do not since YOU are the one trying to change the subject.)

            So lets talk about “The False and Misleading Health Information Provided To Teens by the Indoor Tanning Industry” report.

            The only thing “False (deceptive) and Misleading” was (IMHO) the so-called “study” itself. This was a biased “sting” operation whose results were “preordained” and, therefore, are not valid. Consider that:

            - Untrained and unqualified “interns” were used.
            - No “script” was used.
            - No “recording” of the interview were kept.
            - The interviewers “badgered” the people being interviewed into making a response that they were looking for.
            - The interviewers unethically “lied” when they claimed they were 16 years of age.
            - It is probable that only the “responses” they were looking for were included in the results.
            - No “in person” interviews of a sampling of the salons who were interviewed on the phone were conducted as “checks” on accuracy/validity/honesty.

            To date, we have been unable to get copies of the script, records, personnel, working papers, etc., but when we do (a FOI request is pending), the “truth” about this “scam” will be exposed.

            But MAYBE an enterprising journalist will decide to “look into” this waste of government resources and uncover the “biased agenda” behind this witch hunt by the House of Representatives.

          • still on topic.. on 02.22.2012 at 4:02 am

            @ D. L. Smith
            Ok I’ll bite, even though you have yet to provide me any proof your product is harmless.

            IF you are correct and IF the study was flawed, then yes, you may have a valid complaint. HOWEVER… the evidence is already stacked against you. Did you read the CDC studies referenced above? Pretty compelling stuff.

            Google Vit D false health claims tanning and you will see that the Attorney General in Texas has concerns about unlawful marketing campaigns (bottom of page 5 to top of 6 is my stand out fave)

            https://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2008/111008darquetan_pop.pdf

            This has video..
            https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=2724

            ———————————————-

            And here we see an FTC release dated 01/26/2010

            “Indoor Tanning Association Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers About Skin Cancer Risks From Tanning.

            Under its settlement with the Commission, the indoor Tanning Association is prohibited from making the following misrepresentation challenged in the complaint…

            “Indoor tanning is safer than tanning outdoors because the amount of ultraviolet light received when tanning indoors is monitored and controlled”

            http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/01/tanning.shtm

            —————————————————-

            But wait, doesn’t this industry training program appear to reward just that..

            Ohio Employee Earns 2011 Smart Tan Award
            Thursday, October 27th, 2011

            Smart Tan honored H2O Tanning employee Amanda Parrott with the 2011 Smart Tan Award for Industry Service in a ceremony at the opening general session at Smart Tan Downtown Oct. 15 — recognizing her outstanding role as an D-Angel-trained sunlight ambassador

            “Since 1997 Smart Tan has recognized true innovators and difference-makers in the tanning community with the Smart Tan Award, presented at your annual convention. It is not about bricks and mortar. It is about content and character and efforts that truly advance the indoor tanning community as a whole,” Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said in the ceremony.

            Parrott received the award along with Celsius Tannery owner Roger Holmes, who was also honored.

            Parrott is the first salon employee ever to receive the Smart Tan Award. In fact, she’s relatively new to the tanning market — helping Kellie Willie open H2O Tanning in Marysville, Ohio in 2010. Parrott completed Smart Tan’s Master’s Certification Track — which includes the D-Angel Empowerment Training designed to motivate staff to make a difference in your community. Parrott did just that.

            While attending esthetician school, Parrott was shocked that an instructor maintained that sunbeds could microwave people. Here’s how Parrott reacted, in her own words: “I stopped the class and explained how it was a complete myth…I had to correct her several times through the class.”

            It didn’t end there. As H2O owner Kellie Willie recalls, “The instructor immediately went on to the next portion of her lecture, avoiding the remainder of what she was going to say about tanning beds at that time… until she made a comment that it is safer to tan outdoors than it is to tan in an indoor tanning bed. Amanda once again interrupted the class by saying, ‘Excuse me, but I don’t know how much UV my skin is taking in when I am outdoors since there are so many variables like the weather conditions, the time of day, how the Earth is tilted, and even the density of the Ozone layer directly above me just then. I find it much safer to tan in a tanning bed where I know exactly how much ultraviolet I am getting based on the types of lamps in the bed and how much time I spend in it. A tanning bed offers a very controlled amount of UV that cannot be achieved outdoors, and I feel MUCH SAFER tanning in that controlled environment, thank you!’”

            According to Willie, the instructor did not mention tanning, either indoors or out, for the remainder of the lecture. “In fact, since then several of the students from that class have approached Amanda specifically to discuss indoor tanning, and Amanda is always willing to share her knowledge on the subject,” Willie said.

            http://smarttan.com/news/index.php/ohio-employee-earns-2011-smart-tan-award/

            —————————————

            Maybe an enterprising journalist will come along and ask why on earth any government would continue to permit a business to market a known but unregulated carcinogen to our children eh..

  • solargeek on 02.19.2012 at 7:59 pm

    Assuming DL Smith’s post appears above this one… the derms should be looking in their OWN backyard not commercial tanning salons’ back yard.

    Per Mr Smith (should he go to Washington?) J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Jan 18. [Epub ahead of print] indicates PUVA is far more responsible for skin cancer than the paltry 1.75 IRR (not even statistically significant until 3 or above) IARC scam report:

    SCC: IRR = 6.01
    BCC: IRR = 3.09
    CMM: IRR = 8.40

    All tumors: IRR = 20.92 (maybe this includes “age spots” actinic keratosis – not sure… it doesn’t say).

    Point being… some of you anti-UV folks are on a “crusade” against tanning beds with “data” far less significant than that for the good doctors’ own in-office UV treatment booths. Stop it! Focus on your own back yard. Much higher risk.

    Obviously the derms don’t understand erythemally effective (Eeff) DOSE vs DOSE Rate… nor the law of reciproity. It does not matter if tanning beds put out UVA+UVB 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 times summer sun Eeff… as long as the minutes of exposure are set down to not exceed FDA dose limits: 0.45 MED initial exposure building up to 4 MEDs max after full tan (approx SPF of 4) develops. Professional salons follow these guideline as “rules”. Home beds or coin operated beds (or lying on a beach) have no such controls. Nor… apparently.. do derm offices using PUVA!

    All of which leaves one wondering what dose the derm UVB (either narrow or full band) booths are bombarding patients with! Perhaps the next study from Department of Dermatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts will expose those devices as well? Unless maybe BU does it first (not holding my breath).

    Anyway…. my whole point being… to the demonize-UV-faction out there: Please limit your criticism to authentic altruistic scientifically proven (cause-effect) studies – like UV damage to XP and Lupus and Albino of Type 1 skin with moles folks. Please stop demonizing UV (solar or lamp) exposure for all the rest of us who tan easily and rarely burn… and who appreciate our good vitamin D levels.

    Oh – and also please turn down any and all future spf lotion makers’ support (including boondoggle seminars to sunny locations) that might possibly influence your position on this important subject. Thankyou.

    • Groundhog Day? on 02.20.2012 at 5:08 am

      –Like I said to Mr Smith.. the congressional report was titled “The False and Misleading Health Information Provided to Teens by the Indoor Tanning Industry”

      Not “How bad is PUVA”

      “Professional salons follow these guideline as “rules”.

      –I keep hearing this, but guidelines are not rules.

      “Home beds or coin operated beds (or lying on a beach) have no such controls.”

      -We need tangible controls in order to eliminate coin operated beds and reinforce tax funded public safety messages. (And maybe save some lives in the process. You know, that altruistic stuff.)

      • solargeek on 02.20.2012 at 12:40 pm

        “–Like I said to Mr Smith.. the congressional report was titled “The False and Misleading Health Information Provided to Teens by the Indoor Tanning Industry”

        Not “How bad is PUVA” ”

        Granted… but isn’t this similar to trumping up some report indicating radon gas in the basement might increase your risk for lung cancer by lets say 1.75 while ignoring a report saying smoking increases your risk by lets say 20.92? (not real RR… just using for illustration).

        You are dodging the question. Why shouldn’t PUVA be banned completely? Not just for under 18. That would be altruistic for your own patients… no?

        • industry on today show- puva =vitamin D on 05.04.2012 at 1:52 pm

          Joe Levy Smart tan “This is a sun bed….. exactly what you find used in dermatology offices for sunbed procedures for photo therapy procedures – it is little less intense than that. There are millions of customers a year who come to us because this is just like what they get in a dermatologists office but less expensive”

          interviewer “you’re talking about Vitamin D”

          Joe Levy “absolutely it was developed for Vitamin D production in northern Europe..”

          say what?

          http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/47292831#47292831

          https://smarttan.com/news/index.php/smart-tans-levy-on-nbc-today-show/

  • too easy on 02.19.2012 at 11:59 pm

    HP – 30% to 50% more UVA than SUN? on 02.17.2012 at 2:57 pm
    replylink
    why that’s worse!

    You ask ” why did you fail to comment about the very high level of UVA emitted by PUVA units? ..”

    actually, I said the following..

    “The California amendment was about teaching all children UV safety. PUVA (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9867) patients are under the care of a medical doctor.”

    In answer to your second question..”Are you unaware of the data Epidemiologist Dr. Mia Papas presented in June at the World Congress of Epidemiology showing that the World Health Organization data actually indicts medical phototherapy units and not commercial sunbeds?”

    Nope no data there. Just this abstract.
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/173/suppl_11.toc

    Abstracts of the 3rd North American Congress of Epidemiology, June 21-24, 2011 Montreal, Canada

    DIFFERENTIAL RISK OF MALIGNANT MELANOMA BY
    SUNBED EXPOSURE TYPE. *M A Papas, A H Chappelle,
    (Chappelle Toxicology Consulting, Chadds Ford, PA), and WB
    Grant (Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San
    Francisco, CA)

    I have seen it referred to before though..

    “World Health Organization data show no risk for commercial sunbeds when you isolate the people who tanned uncontrolled at home or in medical facilities (Papas 2011). Further, when you remove Skin Type 1 people from the data, it also results in a non-significant risk (Grant 2010). So this is about knowing your skin type, not what age you are. No health organization has refuted these data.”

    Clever last line that.. “No health organization has refuted these data” But apparently no health organization CAN refute unpublished data…

    Another reference…JCTA – “Commercial tanning salons not the culprit” – Feb 01, 2011
    http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Letters-to-editor/2011-02-01/article-2188238/Commercial-tanning-salons-not-the-culprit/1

    “Re ‘Tanning beds and the risks for youth’ (The Guardian, Jan. 26, 2011): The Joint Canadian Tanning Association (JCTA) has been working with provincial governments across Canada to develop comprehensive regulations for the commercial tanning industry. These proposed regulations go much further than simply an age restriction for minors”

    “Recent studies that show that sunbeds provide a risk of 75 per cent are flawed. These studies contain data for people that tan at both commercial facilities and at home and use medical units. Home tanning is uncontrolled and provides a much greater risk factor for melanoma and medical units can give burning exposures. When you remove these home and medical units’ data from the study the new risk factor is not 75 per cent but just six per cent, not even relevant, for those under age 35.”

    not. even. relevant.
    It is my opinion as a parent that any risk is indeed relevant.

  • yup, groundhog day on 02.20.2012 at 2:26 pm

    [That would be altruistic for your own patients… no?]

    –please pay attention

    —————————————-
    no study links? on 02.17.2012 at 7:10 pm

    “To save me some time, how about you play fair. I have shared links to newer research that addresses the IARC confounders. (And the risk is not just melanoma, even Holick knows that.)
    But all you do is quote numbers with no meat… ”

    ———————————————

    D. L. Smith on 02.19.2012 at 4:31 pm
    I didn’t know I was going to have to do ALL of the work for you. Both Papas citations were sent to your BU email address.

    —————————————————–
    what are you on about .. on 02.20.2012 at 4:29 am
    “I didn’t know I was going to have to do ALL of the work for you. Both Papas citations were sent to your BU email address.”

    -that would be impossible..

    ———————————————-

    Hint… I don’t work at BU (Wrong tree, sorry)

  • Frankie B on 02.20.2012 at 5:38 pm

    Since it is apparent that Dr. Gilchrest is posting (while not using her name), I have a direct question for her.

    In the first version of this article, the author had included a direct quote from you that stated, “Tanning beds provide no Vitamin D at all”. That statement has since been removed from the article. As a scientist, researcher and teacher, you know that that statement is blatantly false. How can you justify making it?

    If you are willing to make such direct and dishonest statements, that are contrary to the facts, it makes one wonder about the validity of other statements you have made.

    • again, on 02.25.2012 at 12:59 pm

      –I am not Dr Gilchrest, but I did google her name and VitD and was taken to the Vitamin D Council website where I found some pretty direct statements from another scientist and researcher…

      ————————————————-
      –About the Vitamin D Council

      “The Vitamin D Council is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational corporation in the State of California, founded in 2003 by Executive Director John J. Cannell, M.D., on the conviction that humans all over the world are needlessly suffering from vitamin D deficiency.”

      –The Vitamin D Council reports here on a 2006 Vit D workshop
      DR Gilchrest attended a few years ago..

      Quote “Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, who fired Dr. Michael Holick from one of his professorships several years ago after Holick wrote a book saying God knew what she was doing when she created sunlight, gave the Plenary Lecture. Wisely, Dr. Gilchrest overwhelmed the audience with graphic pictures of invasive skin cancer to support her argument that sunlight is evil. Of course, it’s harder to show pictures of invasive colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and the 15 other internal cancers caused by sunlight deprivation.”

      –Site disclaimer
      *These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. The products and information presented on this website are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

      –Dr. Joseph Mercola indicates on his website that the Vitamin D council recommends his electric tanning beds…

      “Recommended by the Vitamin D Council
      Scientists at the Vitamin D Council agree that both children and adults should have a Vitamin D level of 50 ng/ml all year-round. They recommend the use of any Mercola Tanning Systems as a safe and effective way to help you achieve natural levels of Vitamin D. The Vitamin D Council is a nonprofit organization whose aim is to educate the public about Vitamin D deficiency and how to prevent it.
      http://tanningbeds.mercola.com/

      The following observation was made in 2006 by Dr Cannell when he wrote about his Epidemic influenza and vitamin D paper linked here
      http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=529704

      “Like all theories, our theory must withstand attempts to be disproved with dispassionately conducted and well-controlled scientific experiments.” http://www.whale.to/a/cannell.html

      now that’s more like it

      • Vitamin D - "results do not support the hypothesis.." on 03.13.2012 at 2:23 am

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22026455

        Vitamin D supplementation did not prevent influenza-like illness as diagnosed retrospectively by questionnaires in subjects participating in randomized clinical trials.

        Jorde R, Witham M, Janssens W, Rolighed L, Borchhardt K, de Boer IH, Grimnes G, Hutchinson MS.
        Source

        Endocrinology Research Group, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tromsø, and Medical Clinic, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway. rolf.jorde@unn.no

        Abstract

        BACKGROUND:

        Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with a number of diseases, including influenza. Whether or not this reflects a causal relationship is unknown. We therefore wanted to examine if supplementation with vitamin D would affect the incidence and severity of influenza-like disease.

        METHODS:

        Questionnaires on influenza were sent to subjects participating in ongoing placebo-controlled intervention studies with vitamin D supplementation, up until the end of April 2010.

        RESULTS:

        Five hundred and sixty-nine subjects from 10 different clinical trials were included in the study, of whom 289 were randomized to receive vitamin D (1111-6800 IU/day) and 280 to receive placebo. Influenza-like disease during the previous fall/winter was reported in 38 subjects in the vitamin D group and 42 in the placebo group (non-significant), of whom 25 and 26 subjects, respectively, fulfilled our clinical criteria for influenza. In these latter subjects, the duration of illness was significantly longer among those in the vitamin D group than among those in the placebo group (median 7 (range 2-60) days vs median 4 (range 2-18) days; p = 0.007). However, this difference was not statistically significant if all 38 (vitamin D) and 42 (placebo) subjects who reported symptoms were included.

        CONCLUSION:

        Our results do not support the hypothesis that high doses of vitamin D supplementation will have a pronounced effect on influenza-like disease in populations not targeted for high influenza risk.

        PMID:
        22026455
        [PubMed - in process]

  • patience yes on 02.21.2012 at 1:02 am

    patients, no.

    Speaking of patients though, when sick people (I could be one of them) need medical treatment, then their situation is incomparable with the clients you market to.
    You are comparing apples with oranges and producing a big red herring my friend..

  • hawaiiguy on 02.24.2012 at 12:26 am

    Several years ago Dr Gilchrests lab at Boston University was working to develop a genuine sunless tanning product that could tan the skin without uv. If such a product was on the market today that would help alleviate the use of tanning beds.

    I wonder whatever happened to all the research they did on it? I haven’t heard about it in years.

  • D. L. Smith on 02.24.2012 at 6:18 pm

    Enterprising Journalist:

    The word “safe” can be defined as (a) free from all injury or risk; (b) involving little or no risk; or, (c) when the benefits of an activity significantly outweigh the risks. Please define what YOU mean when the word “safe” is used.

    • what benefits significantly outweigh risks ? on 02.27.2012 at 3:55 am

      (btw, I asked for harmless.)

      But speaking of “(C)”and weighing risks, here we see an industry representative state on the font page of a Canadian Newspaper that “Sunlight has a higher risk because it’s an uncontrolled environment.”

      http://www.vancouversun.com/health/empowered-health/government+working+tanning+regulations/6182237/story.html#Comments#ixzz1n3AlZFQD

      (Gosh, I wonder if it’s safe to go outside..)

      • D. L. Smith on 02.28.2012 at 12:24 pm

        Which of the following do you consider to be safe/harmless?

        1. Medical isotopes
        2. Dental X-Rays
        3. Mammograms
        4. PUVA therapy
        5. Photodynamic therapy
        6. Tamoxifen
        7. Oral contraceptives
        8. Alcoholic beverages
        9. Mustard gas
        10. Indoor tanning

        • solargeek on 02.28.2012 at 9:39 pm

          The anti UV faction might not answer this…. but I will.

          Correct response: All of the above.

          However… Indoor tanning compared to mustard gas, PUVA “therapy”, Medical isotopes, etc is a no brainer: Thousands of times less absolute risk than any of those on the list re mortality.

          Even medical “mistakes” in hospitals FAR outranks indoor tanning.

          No matter what the argument however… you can never convince a “parent” whose child went to some worthless “salon” and got burned repeatedly. The exception rather than the rule of course. But on a personal level he/she feels somebody or something needs the blame.

          If my kid went to a tanning place and got burned even once… I would take away their car keys to make sure once was enough.

          • all of the above... on 02.29.2012 at 3:02 pm

            really, all safe/harmless?

            “No matter what the argument however… you can never convince a “parent” whose child went to some worthless “salon” and got burned repeatedly. The exception rather than the rule of course. But on a personal level he/she feels somebody or something needs the blame.”

            –The salon was conveniently located a block from the school.
            (It would be hard to take car keys away from a CHILD who had yet to learn how to drive.) A waiver was not required.

            –The burns I learned about only recently. Are they really that rare?

            –This Canadian Cancer Society survey of 600 citizens reports that just over one third of the declared tanning bed users say they experienced “one or more sunburn from indoor tanning salon exposure.”
            http://www.cancergameplan.ca/pdf/B294_CCS-Indoor_Tanning_Research.pdf

            –And researchers say here that ” patients were more likely to have reported painful burns while tanning indoors (OR=2.28; 95% CI, 1.71-3.04), experienced a greater number of burns while using a tanning device or experienced painful sunburns at a time when they thought they were protected from the sun by indoor tanning (OR=2.00; 95% CI, 1.48-2.70).”
            http://www.hemonctoday.com/article.aspx?rid=65930

            –But, every “parent” should keep in mind that the risk is not just melanoma from skin burns..

            ——————————-
            Holick Quote..
            “The association of excessive exposure to solar ultraviolet B radiation and increased risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer is well documented.25
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715200/
            —————————————-

            A UV induced non melanoma skin cancer can also be disfiguring.
            And NMSC is looking a lot less like ‘just skin cancer’ these days..
            ————————–
            Abstract

            Background: Based on empirical evidence, a personal history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has been hypothesized to be a risk factor for other cancers. Others hypothesize that NMSC may be a marker of high cutaneous vitamin D synthesis and therefore inversely associated with risk of other malignancies. To reconcile these divergent views, we carried out a systematic review to determine the association between NMSC and subsequent risk of other cancers.

            Conclusions: Strong, consistent evidence indicates that a personal history of NMSC is associated with increased risk of developing other malignancies.

            http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2010/06/18/1055-9965.EPI-10-0243.abstract

            —————————–

          • an astounding fifty eight percent report burns.. on 03.01.2012 at 12:02 am

            Indoor tanning use among adolescents in the US, 1998 to 2004.
            Cokkinides V, Weinstock M, Lazovich D, Ward E, Thun M.

            RESULTS:

            The prevalence of indoor tanning use by adolescents within the past year changed little from 1998 to 2004 (10% to 11%). In states with policies regarding minors’ access to indoor tanning, the prevalence stayed the same or decreased from 1998 to 2004, whereas it increased in states without such policies. Neither trend was found to be statistically significant. Youth tanning attitudes, parental indoor tanning use, and parents’ permission were strongly associated with youth use of indoor tanning. Fifty-eight percent of users reported burns from indoor tanning.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085965

        • let me guess on 02.29.2012 at 1:23 pm

          this is your party trick and 10 wins the day?

          The first 7 are medical in nature (a patient|doctor decision not a customer|salon employee decision.)
          8 is clearly an adult decision.
          9 is a WHO red herring and 10 is an unregulated carcinogen.. one that is sold directly to children.
          10 is very scary indeed.

          (BTW – is this little demonstration your ‘proof’ that tanning is harmless? If so, you may have to try harder..)

        • D. L. Smith on 02.29.2012 at 2:07 pm

          Your silence is interesting and enlightening.

          All of the items listed below have been listed as a Class 1 – Known to be a human carcinogen – by IARC. So, pray tell, why is UVR/indoor tanning “singled out” for condemnation? Why was UVR/indoor tanning the only one “linked” to mustard gas and arsenic?

          And please keep in mind that UVR is the ONLY item listed as a Class 1 “known to be a human carcinogen” that is absolutely necessary for all life on earth.

          1. Medical isotopes
          2. Dental X-Rays
          3. Mammograms
          4. PUVA therapy
          5. Photodynamic therapy
          6. Tamoxifen
          7. Oral contraceptives
          8. Alcoholic beverages
          9. Mustard gas
          10. Arsenic
          11. Radon gas
          12. UVR/Indoor Tanning

          • waiting to be enlightened.. on 02.29.2012 at 3:16 pm

            yes, UVR is necessary for life – and your point is? (Nature created electric tanning beds so that the poor chaps who lived -and thrived for centuries- up north could shed their furs and grab some D?)

          • D. L. Smith on 03.01.2012 at 12:57 pm

            I leave this discussion with the words (below) by Sam Shuster, MD, Professor of Dermatology at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.

            “Suntan is an evolutionary device: it protects against burning. The anti-solar brigade’s claim that it indicates skin damage is a measure of their biological naivety. A suntatan is just a sign of increased pigment – melanin – in the skin and is a natural biological response to the sun, not a sign of skin damage.

            So don’t keep yourself and your children out of the sun; far better to develop a healthy tan without burning. Sunshine is the dynamo for vitamin D production. Without it your bones will crack, as those practising sun avoidance have found.”

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1301722/The-melanoma-epidemic-Dont-panic–terrible-mistake.html#ixzz1nt2psCog

          • shoelaces! on 03.01.2012 at 3:21 pm

            Well D L Smith, it seems that avoiding sunburn is something we can ALL agree on.

            —————————————–
            The skin cancer cover-up
            Essay by Professor Sam Shuster
            2 August 2005

            Nature’s own sunblock

            “What then should we do about UV exposure and sunscreens? The short answer is that in moderate climates like the UK, apart from avoiding sunburn and staring at the sun, it doesn’t matter what we do, because the risk of exposure is trivial. Of course, children have to learn how much sun they can take without burning, and their parents need to ensure they get a gradual UV exposure in order to achieve a protective tan (that is more important in children with ginger hair and freckles, most of whom will need to take care not to burn throughout adult life). In the UK, there is no point in trying to minimise sun exposure to avoid skin cancer because our sun is usually too weak to be a danger.”

            http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CACD1.htm

            —————————————————-
            –pardon me..

            “In the UK, there is no point in trying to minimise sun exposure to avoid skin cancer because our sun is usually too weak to be a danger.”

            – @ Sam Shuster; is this comment based on actual science?
            I burned repeatedly as a child in the UK but you appear to indicate the UK sun is weak and of no danger. Did the UK sun get weaker? Are the gurus who tell us the ozone is thinning wrong?
            (I wish the derm who found my melanoma was wrong. BTW he refuses to remove atypical moles.)

            ———————————————-

            –more UK research..

            In Dec 2009 research teams in the United Kingdom announced the first comprehensive analysis of two cancer genomes, lung cancer and melanoma. These are the two main cancers in the developed world for which we know the primary exposure. For lung cancer, it is cigarette smoke and for malignant melanoma it is exposure to sunlight. http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/press/2009/091216.html

            DNA analysis is used in our legal system to determine responsibility.

  • Candy on 02.25.2012 at 5:18 am

    The people on here saying that tanning beds aren’t actually “that bad” are totally ridiculous. They are so obviously harmful to human beings. There is no reason a person should ever bake him or herself in one of those things. They really do increase the risk of skin cancer, plus they just flat-out prematurely age your skin and make it look gross. You are tanning your skin like tanneries do to animal hides to make leather. Haven’t you seen people who consistently go tanning? They look leathery and dried out. As for concerns about not getting enough sunlight, tanning beds are not the solution. GO OUTSIDE. Even in the winter, there is sun; sit by a window if it is cold. Take a vitamin D supplement if you have to. People who want to believe tanning isn’t that harmful just want to tan, and that is their choice. Same thing as people who want to smoke, do drugs, etc…. But facts are facts.

  • CMM on 02.28.2012 at 11:00 pm

    I think the push for more laws and restrictions from the derm’s need to continue since the belief is that the sun and indoor sun is so DEADLY to us. The derms need to go after public and private swimming pools that are outside. Then they need to ban everyone from being out at public beaches. Then they should work to close all the parks and places outdoors like Disneyland. WAIT…don’t forget the kids going out to the playground at lunch. You should mandate umbrellas for any human walking outside. Levy child abuse charges against any parent with a child that shows evidence of a sunburn on their little noses. Next, go after all national holidays that involve being outdoors like the 4th of July. Make sure you work to outlaw all boating and commercial fishing because they are in the sun all day. In fact…anyone that works outdoors needs to be laid off because UV rays penetrate clothing. Work legislation to get all the cruise ships taken to the ship yards too and ban outdoor vacations. Perhaps you could work to get an increased disability rating for all the vets that served in the desert in the middle east because according your articles the government needs to PAY the thousands of soldiers for putting them at a HUGE increased risk for skin cancer by being in the middle east sun for 12 hours a day. The validation should be easy since you compared it to Mustard Gas. Better hurry up and get to banning us all from the sunlight..indoors or out..so we can spend more time accepting all the pills you prescribe, injecting silicons and botox and don’t forget about all the great mercury vaccines we can get our children. Why not…people are so dang believing in you all and what the gov’t agencies put out that any lie told 100 times becomes the truth. Case in point..look at the posts here of all your blind followers that need you to make decisions for them. We look forward to no longer being able to grow a garden in our VERY own backyard soon because under Obama care we have to get permits and Public Health approval. I cannot wait to see this list start from you guys because then no more worries about buying a new bathing suit. ;)

    • public swimming pools? on 02.29.2012 at 12:53 pm

      when water is SOLD it is regulated.

    • Anthony Priestas (Liberty at BU) on 04.13.2012 at 9:45 am

      CMM has quite effectively defined the nanny state. The elimination of freedom…for your own good.

  • CMM on 02.29.2012 at 10:43 am

    Parents…..did you toss all the cellphones your kids own?

    Do you see a pattern yet? So if the WHO compares Tanning beds to Mustard Gas and you buy it then you should be convinced your teens are taking in Lead and engine exhaust using a cellphone? Are you running up to them grabbing and destroying those cellphones yet?

    (CNN) — Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same “carcinogenic hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html

    • a pattern yes on 03.01.2012 at 4:06 pm

      -obfuscation

      the senate report missed that one.

  • BBU on 03.22.2012 at 1:13 pm

    few points to ponder:

    1)Derms started attacking indoor tanning industry as soon as indoor tanning went public. Prior to this..you could only indoor tan AT your derms office for a few hundred dollars.

    2) Beauty/Skin/Derm industry is a multi multi BILLION dollar industry. Money talks. They can easily group together and spread “news” and “facts” however they please to benefit..say like making you apply so much SPF that you need multiple bottles over the course of a vacation. Or charging more for an SPF higher than 30 when it has been proven that anything higher than 30 does not protect any more than 30.

    3) Speaking of sunscreen.. do you know how many carcinogens are in the most commonly bought sunscreens? 3-5 generally. Those are carcinogenic chemicals that you can applying directly into your blood stream.

    4) If you do your research..there has not been ONE conclusive study relating TANNING to skin cancer. Burning? Yes. Tanning? No. They have all been “thrown out” due to extenuating variables that rendered the study inconclusive. However.. statements made about overexposure aren’t regulated in anyway.. probably because this “sun scare” industry can pay them off to say what they want.

    I’m not saying that tanning is good.. I’m not saying that tanning is bad. Do your research..(this does not included reading Cosmo, US weekly, Womens Health..) and make your own informed decision.

    • 4) research: burning happens in salons too... on 03.22.2012 at 3:26 pm

      and you can read about it right here on this page, but in case you missed it, I will begin with a brief summary..

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085965

      RESULTS. Fifty-eight percent of users reported burns from indoor tanning.

      http://www.hemonctoday.com/article.aspx?rid=65930

      “patients were more likely to have reported painful burns while tanning indoors (OR=2.28; 95% CI, 1.71-3.04), experienced a greater number of burns while using a tanning device or experienced painful sunburns at a time when they thought they were protected from the sun by indoor tanning (OR=2.00; 95% CI, 1.48-2.70).”

      http://www.cancergameplan.ca/pdf/B294_CCS-Indoor_Tanning_Research.pdf

      -just over one third of the declared tanning bed users say they experienced “one or more sunburn from indoor tanning salon exposure.”

      ————–

      as for 1) -Dermatologists are not the only medical professionals to tell us children should be banned from tanning beds. (And countries with socialized medicine are hearing the same message from their own medical professionals.)

      2) -The beauty industry in general is HUGE. How big is the indoor tanning industry? Have they banded together to fight teen legislation? ( Sure looks like it here – http://www.theita.com/?page=State_Legislation )

      3) -Shop wisely.
      Better yet, avoid EXCESS UV exposure entirely. Pale skin is not ghostly, nor is it ugly, pasty, vampire like – OR unhealthy. (But it does look fresh and youthful, baby I was born this way:)

      • BBU on 03.22.2012 at 5:14 pm

        Yes.. it is quite obvious that you can burn while indoor tanning. That is why it is important to go to a facility (if you are going to tan indoors) that knows what they are talking about (yes..they are few and far between..but they do exist..even in Boston). I for one have actually never burned while indoor tanning because I was directed properly by the staff as well as understanding my own skin..and I do burn outside pretty easily..

        As for teenage tanning.. shouldn’t it be the parents decision to allow or not allow? You do know what a tan is right? Quite simply it is what your skin does to protect itself from burning. Whether you want to call it damaging or not is your decision.. but that is why your body “tans” when exposed to UV light. So is it wrong to “moderately” expose your child to UV light prior to a vacation in Mexico? Obviously a personal decision.. but I for one am not against that at all.

        as for 1) your response actually had nothing to do with my point. Indoor UV exposure (tanning beds) were perfectly acceptable to derms. when it was in their office and they were banking a few hundred $’s form it.. interesting..

        2) The indoor tanning industry is actually completely separate from the main stream “Beauty industry”..as the beauty industry has teamed up with the Derm. industry in selling products after products to protect or reverse “sun damage” etc.

        3) no doubt.. pale skin can be beautiful. But you want to trust what the derms. and “Beauty magazines” are telling you about UV exposure and wearing sunscreen? Why are they telling you to directly apply carcinogenic chemicals on your skin?? My opinion.. the sun is natural.. getting a tan from UV light is natural. applying chemicals to your skin that then enter your blood stream? That doesn’t sound so smart…..

        • what is important, on 03.22.2012 at 8:33 pm

          is not going “to a facility (if you are going to tan indoors) that knows what they are talking about (yes..they are few and far between..but they do exist..even in Boston.”
          No, what is important is making sure that people who can burn like you, and all the other adults who want to change the color of their skin (using a known carcinogen no less) are purchasing a regulated product.
          Frankly I do not know how anyone can object to this.. especially paying customers.

          As for teenage tanning, moms who tan are known to take their children tanning as young teens. Studies show parental consent does not reduce the numbers of teens tanning. Parental consent is not effective at reducing teen tanning. (The senate report made that clear.)

          As for my missing your point, no, you missed mine. You choose to make this all about derms and I say it is not.
          See here for the AMA and AAP position. (I could go on, but will leave it at that for now http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/03/21/hlsa0321.htm )

          “Ultraviolet radiation is a known carcinogen, and physicians should advise patients to take precautions against harmful exposure and support state-level legislation to ban minors from indoor tanning salons, says the American Academy of Pediatrics.

          Rising skin cancer rates among young people have prompted the AAP and other organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, to issue policies warning against tanning and excessive UVR exposure.”

          ———-

          2) you say ” The indoor tanning industry is actually completely separate from the main stream “Beauty industry”..as the beauty industry has teamed up with the Derm. industry in selling products after products to protect or reverse “sun damage” etc.”

          The following industry quotes suggest indoor tanning provides a cosmetic service in addition to a (much hyped) vitamin.
          (While indoor tanning may be separate from the beauty service “main stream’, is it still very much in the stream.)

          http://www.theita.com/?page=Positive_Effects_UV

          “While indoor tanning is a cosmetic service, a well-known side effect of exposing the skin to ultraviolet (UV) light is the production of vitamin D. Emerging evidence suggests that there may be an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in North America. Research also suggests that vitamin D plays an important role in maintaining good health. In light of this evidence, the Indoor Tanning Association believes that the health benefits of indoor tanning deserve further research.”
          -

          “While the indoor tanning industry in the United States promotes its services for cosmetic purposes, the fact remains that exposing the skin to ultraviolet light is the body’s primary means of producing vitamin D (which in turn is related to positive physiological effects). Exposure to UV light is also responsible for the production of endorphins and serotonin (which in turn is related to positive psychological effects).”

          and finally 3) you say ” no doubt.. pale skin can be beautiful. But you want to trust what the derms. and “Beauty magazines” are telling you about UV exposure and wearing sunscreen? Why are they telling you to directly apply carcinogenic chemicals on your skin?? My opinion.. the sun is natural.. getting a tan from UV light is natural. applying chemicals to your skin that then enter your blood stream? That doesn’t sound so smart….”

          Yes the sun is natural, and it’s free too. Tanning beds are powered by electricity, they use artificial UV lamps and are cooled by strong air conditioners. They CONSUME natural resources and are marketed as sunshine, but sunshine they are not. And as such they should be regulated.
          Our ancestors who thrived for centuries did not ALL reside in sunny Florida. (I dare say mine never took off their woollies summer or winter.) A tan is not natural for everyone.
          IMO neither is sitting in the sun wearing chemicals -I prefer to avoid the midday sun and tanning beds to be smart.

        • 2 b on 03.23.2012 at 1:49 pm

          skin rejuvenation is not exclusively a “Beauty/Skin/Derm” thing.

          http://stuffboston.com/getpretty/archive/2011/05/16/running-a-red-light.aspx

          “Red-light therapy has been vigorously studied in clinical trials and proven to be effective for skin rejuvenation,” says Jacquelyn DiDiego, bosTAN’s holistic-health counselor. “It builds better skin on the cellular level, stimulating collagen production and flushing the skin with freshly oxygenated blood.” Skeptical at first, DiDiego has been using the bed for a few months; she says she’s experienced noticeable softening of her crow’s feet and deep forehead wrinkles.”

          ———————–

          It looks like red light therapy is gaining in popularity. Here we can see that the FDA has issued a letter to the Indoor Tanning Association regarding red light retrofits. (Take note of the ‘promotional claims’.)

          https://smarttan.com/news/index.php/fda-issues-red-light-letter/

          “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware that some tanning salon owners are removing the original ultraviolet (UV)-emitting tanning lamps from their tanning beds/booths and replacing them with lamps that emit red light. These salon owners are then selling sessions in the red-light units with a range of indications and promotional claims, including ones pertaining to:

          reversal of sun or UV damage to the skin,
          wound healing,
          increased blood flow/circulation
          reduced pain and/or inflammation
          treatment of acne
          reduction of appearance of wrinkles, pigmentation spots, stretch marks, and/or scarring,
          skin rejuvenation, restoration, oxygenation, and/or hydration,
          collagen/elastin production/reorganization, and
          skin structure, elasticity, and/or metabolism.


          FDA requests the Indoor Tanning Association’s assistance in getting this message out to its members. FDA is also communicating this message to state radiation control programs. Some states have expressed concern about this practice to FDA and have already taken action on their own”

    • 1 b - socialized medicine and logic on 03.26.2012 at 3:02 pm

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized%20medicine

      socialized medicine:

      “medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation”

      BBU states
      [ 1) Derms started attacking indoor tanning industry as soon as indoor tanning went public. Prior to this..you could only indoor tan AT your derms office for a few hundred dollars. ]

      Rubbish; there is proof that skin cancer is caused by UV exposure.
      Countries with tax funded medical systems are feeling the economic pinch and are also moving to regulate the indoor tanning industry and ban minors. (Australia, UK and Canada are but three.)

      When politicians in New South Wales Australia announced they would totally ban commercial tanning units effective December 31, 2014 they made it clear skin cancer is expensive..

      ”All the data shows that the Australian health system spends more money on the diagnosis and treatment of skin cancer than on any other cancer.”

      In countries with socialized medicine there is little profit to be made removing moles and preforming quarterly skin checks. Think about that for a moment.
      In these areas where dermatologists have huge patient wait lists and governments are unwilling to train additional specialists, a reduction in demand is the logical (and humane) thing to do.

  • BBU on 04.04.2012 at 3:55 pm

    BBU states
    [ 1) Derms started attacking indoor tanning industry as soon as indoor tanning went public. Prior to this..you could only indoor tan AT your derms office for a few hundred dollars. ]

    Well my dear..that is actually very true. My grandfather tanned in his derms office back in the day for treatment of psoriasis. In fact, even to this day, I know many people whos derms/pcp’s instruct them to indoor tan for psoriasis, depression and certain types of lupus.

    I’m not necessarily arguing that uv exposure can be dangerous..but OVERexposure is what causes a burn..and although you will find hundreds of thousands of “reports” showing a “link” to TANNING (not burning, not overexposure).. you will not find one CONCLUSIVE study linking tanning to skin cancer.

    Your argument with socialized medicine is elementary and frankly..weak.

    • I'll show you weak:) on 04.04.2012 at 7:21 pm

      so you are defending teen tanning by telling us what exactly.. that your grandfather did it for psoriasis? How has this got anything do with the senate report?

      You say “I’m not necessarily arguing that uv exposure can be dangerous..but OVERexposure is what causes a burn..and although you will find hundreds of thousands of “reports” showing a “link” to TANNING (not burning, not overexposure).. you will not find one CONCLUSIVE study linking tanning to skin cancer.”

      I can find many studies that link burning to risk, and many others that show burning occurs in tanning salons.
      Why not have a look at this industry publication.. the article titled The Right Direction -Changing Our Industry’s Message is in direct response to the senate report.

      http://www.islandsuntimes.com/

      “Your argument with socialized medicine is elementary and frankly..weak.”

      Frankly, yours is ..nonexistent.

  • Brian Lejeune on 09.07.2012 at 11:44 am

    If it is agreed that more women tan indoors than men, how can the below incidence statistics be explained? Is it possible developing and maintaining a tan in a controlled manner is actually protective against melanoma?

    White 31.6 per 100,000 men 19.9 per 100,000 women

  • Robert Mathews on 02.19.2014 at 12:50 pm

    Tanorexia is a problem for some young people. But idea of banning tanning studios is ridiculous.

Post Your Comment

(never shown)