Comments on: Defiant tanning industry attacks doctors’ warnings

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:38:20 +0000

Unfortunately, Carolyn, your logic is a bit off here. As much as they would like you to believe that it’s different, dermatologists are using the same equipment as commercial tanning parlors…and the problem is, they tend to “treat” patients at higher levels of exposure than a commercial tanning salon would ever be allowed to administer. Their use of methoxsalen also may add to the increased danger. As you can see here, this combination actually leads to a 300 percent increase in melanoma risk, far greater than even the alleged increase risk from commercial tanning beds. By the way, IARC also classifies these medical devices as class 1 carcinogens.

Also, keep in mind that these conditions being treated are purely cosmetic. If they truly believed tanning beds were so dangerous, would they really treat cosmetic conditions with them….especially when their own medical uses have proven to be far more dangerous?

Please don’t make the mistake of assuming that all doctors are being totally truthful. Do your own research and get your facts straight before you go spouting off on a subject.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:12:29 +0000

Thanks for sharing your perspective here, Jayne. Your last paragraph probably refers to prescribed phototherapy (not tanning beds) that provide medical treatment for serious skin conditions like scleroderma, psoriasis, eczema, skin-based lymphoma – and is regulated by the FDA as a medical device. Tanning salon employees are not medical practitioners – no matter how “knowledgeable” they may appear.

Commercial tanning beds have in fact been moved up to the highest cancer risk category—group 1— ‘carcinogenic to humans’ by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer – and are universally condemned by those who know more about skin than you or I do (American Academy of Dermatology Associations, Canadian Dermatology Association, etc)

Don’t shoot the messenger – the only pro-tanning bed literature you’re likely to find is funded by the industry.

LikeLike

By: Jayne D

Jayne D — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:36:55 +0000

Speaking from my own experience I am disappointed at how the value of tanning is just written off in the media. I had my vitamin D levels tested last year and my level was at an 11 ng/ml (dangerously low) My doctor prescribed pills…. That is what doctors do. I couldn’t take them at the same time as my other medication for my thyroid so I consistently forgot to take the prescribed 50k IU per week. I started doing research on Vitamin D and found I could get it from nature (sunlight). No wonder I was deficient. I am fair skinned and could not be in the sun for more than 10 minutes without burning. What to do? More research. I decided to try a more controlled environment, tanning salons. I started out VERY conservatively at the advice of the trained salon technician who gave me a survey type test to determine my skin type (I learned I am a fair skin type 2, had I been a skin type 1 I would have been turned away) I tanned for 2 minutes every other day. After a few weeks I noticed I had a light tan. Working closely with the staff at the salon, I slowly brought up my time in 1 minute increments, I felt they were very knowledgeable and had my best interest in mind. I was able to develop a base tan (they exist and are the body’s natural defense against burns as it turns out) more importantly, I brought up my vitamin D level to a 75 ng/ml in just a few months. I also have had the unexpected but very welcome benefit of being able to spend time outdoors this last summer without ever getting a burn. The key here is to control the UV rays to avoid burning. That is what tanning salons do and THAT is the point they are “Defiantly” trying to make here. I have learned in this process and in my research that Dermatologists actually use tanning beds to treat patients. If it is THAT dangerous, then WHY would they be doing it to treat cosmetic skin conditions?

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:34:22 +0000

Very much so. Back in 1969, Post-Keyes-Gardner, the ad agency for tobacco giant Brown & Williamson, relied on the paid testimony of physicians for a new campaign “to set aside in the minds of millions the false accusations that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer or other diseases.” More on this kind of industry fightback here.

LikeLike

By: Bev RN

Bev RN — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:53:37 +0000

Reminds me of the tobacco industry.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:31:41 +0000

As an sun-loving Australian, your perspective is not surprising, Dr. Joe. But as you know, Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. At least 2 out of 3 Australians will develop skin cancer. And your melanoma incidence rates are four times higher than those found in the U.S.A., the U.K. or here in Canada. These frightening stats are highly associated with UV exposure – and whether that’s in a tanning bed or out on the beach is irrelevant, as the Health Canada report reminds us: “A tan from the sun’s rays or under lights in a tanning salon will damage your skin.”

LikeLike

By: Dr Joe Kosterich

Dr Joe Kosterich — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:21:43 +0000

There is a difference between getting a tan and getting burned. People have been made to fear the sun which is crazy because without the sun there is no life on earth. Hence an opportunity has been created for tanning studios. Whether it is outside or in the salon it is the amount of exposure that matters.

Personally I see no sense in paying a studio when I can get free sunlight.Furthermore I trust the sun more than machines operated by people. In answer to your very apt question I feel, for the reasons above, that tanning beds are best avoided although likely “safe’ in small doses.

LikeLike