Views
Testimony on tanning
2007-04-03 13:57 | Posted by raya | Permanent Link | AdvocacyI remember when I was 5, my mother took me to buy Buster Brown shoes. She said “years before, they used a machine to measure shoe fit with X-rays, but stores don’t have them anymore.” Perhaps some people here today remember fluoroscopes. They emitted X-ray radiation to see foot bones through a shoe. Fluoroscopes were used from 1922 until 1960. However, during those years, radiation was increasingly viewed as something to be avoided.
In 1946, the year after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the American Standards Association established fluoroscope “safe standard or tolerance dose,” per exposure. Children were not to receive more than 12 such exposures per year.
By the early 1950s, the American College of Surgeons, New York Academy of Medicine and the American College of Radiology issued warnings about the devices. In 1957, Pennsylvania became the first state to ban the use of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes. By 1960, they were no longer permitted in the U.S.
Now, nearly 50 years later, states are considering limiting another radiation emitting device.
For the record, it is important to acknowledge
radiation can be used, under controlled circumstances, for treatment of
cancer and other diseases. Dermatologists use Ultraviolet radiation,
in very controlled circumstances, for treatment of severe psoriasis and
eczema.
Here’s the background
• UV light is a form of ionizing radiation.
• Ionizing radiation causes cancer in humans.
• UV radiation, including from tanning beds, causes skin cancer and melanoma skin cancer.
• Young persons, especially girls, use UV tanning beds frequently.
• In spite of a recent report about the decrease of overall cancer rates, the incidence of skin cancer is increasing rapidly.
• It is hard to overemphasize melanoma’s devastating potential.
• Melanoma is best caught early and surgically removed.
• If caught late, melanoma is among the most deadly cancers, with no known cure, and even no known effective treatment.
• Melanoma has some unique and sinister abilities. For one, it can cross the placenta. This means that melanoma can rarely metastasize from a mother to a fetus, killing it.
In spite of all we know regarding the dangers of ultraviolet radiation, it is still being peddled to teenagers, against a backdrop of peer pressure. Why is this? What causes our society to ignore irradiation of its young people? Misinformation is rampant.
Let’s review the arguments. (I’ll play both sides).
Sunlight is natural, and tanning beds mimic sunlight, so it must be okay.
Natural does not mean benign. Poison ivy, asbestos, and uranium occur naturally, but certainly are best avoided.
Tanning feels good
UV radiation injures the skin, and sunbathers’ bodies release endorphins (like a runners high) to compensate for this injury. There is mounting evidence regarding the addictive nature of tanning. Like smoking, UV tanning is both addictive and injurious, a potentially deadly combination.
Aren’t tanning beds ‘safer’ than sun tanning?
UV radiation from tanning beds is in no way safer than sunlight and can be more dangerous. “High pressure” UVA lamps at tanning parlors emit far more UVA radiation than the sun at noon in the summer.
Don’t tanning beds provide a protective tan?
Tanning beds provide about 3x the protection of a person’s non-tanned skin. This pales in comparison to sunblock, which can provide 30x or greater protection. People who think they have a protective tan from tanning beds often overexpose themselves on vacation, leading to higher radiation exposure and greater risk of skin cancer.
What about Vitamin D production?
Vitamin D is produced in the skin. Adequate vitamin D levels are obtained after 20 minutes a week with only the face and hands exposed. In Colorado, it would be nearly impossible to avoid the sun to the point of vitamin D deficiency. Moreover, vitamin D is readily available in milk, fortified orange juice, and vitamin tablets. These are safe ways to get Vitamin D.
What about tanning businesses?
Unlike the tobacco industry, which doesn’t have a product alternative to tobacco, there is an economically viable alternative tan. Spray-on tanning is non-carcinogenic, looks good, and generates income for salons. In Hollywood, this is the only tan that makes sense. Actors want to avoid wrinkles, dark splotches, and an ‘old’ appearance to prolong their careers.
Isn’t parental permission good enough?
A parent’s primary goal is to protect their child. A parent who gives permission to their child to use tanning bed radiation likely does not understand the implications of that permission. If parents should be allowed to decide, by analogy, they should also decide regarding smoking.
By my observation, there is an inverse relationship between an individual’s skin color and their desire to tan. Darker skinned individuals, who tan rapidly, tend to avoid tanning, while lighter skinned persons seek out a tan. Ironically, those very persons that work the hardest to maintain a tan are the ones most at risk from the tan that they seek.
There is no such thing as a safe tan. There is no known safe level of UV radiation exposure.
Skin cancer rates are rising rapidly. It is the duty of society to protect children. Unfortunately, we are yet to see the full ravaging effects of tanning bed use in the U.S., because radiation exposure takes decades to reach its full impact.
Here’s the background
• UV light is a form of ionizing radiation.
• Ionizing radiation causes cancer in humans.
• UV radiation, including from tanning beds, causes skin cancer and melanoma skin cancer.
• Young persons, especially girls, use UV tanning beds frequently.
• In spite of a recent report about the decrease of overall cancer rates, the incidence of skin cancer is increasing rapidly.
Basal cell skin cancer is the most common cancer.
The incidence of melanoma is increasing faster than any other cancer.
• It is hard to overemphasize melanoma’s devastating potential.
• Melanoma is best caught early and surgically removed.
• If caught late, melanoma is among the most deadly cancers, with no known cure, and even no known effective treatment.
• Melanoma has some unique and sinister abilities. For one, it can cross the placenta. This means that melanoma can rarely metastasize from a mother to a fetus, killing it.
In spite of all we know regarding the dangers of ultraviolet radiation, it is still being peddled to teenagers, against a backdrop of peer pressure. Why is this? What causes our society to ignore irradiation of its young people? Misinformation is rampant.
Let’s review the arguments. (I’ll play both sides).
Sunlight is natural, and tanning beds mimic sunlight, so it must be okay.
Natural does not mean benign. Poison ivy, asbestos, and uranium occur naturally, but certainly are best avoided.
Tanning feels good
UV radiation injures the skin, and sunbathers’ bodies release endorphins (like a runners high) to compensate for this injury. There is mounting evidence regarding the addictive nature of tanning. Like smoking, UV tanning is both addictive and injurious, a potentially deadly combination.
Aren’t tanning beds ‘safer’ than sun tanning?
UV radiation from tanning beds is in no way safer than sunlight and can be more dangerous. “High pressure” UVA lamps at tanning parlors emit far more UVA radiation than the sun at noon in the summer.
Don’t tanning beds provide a protective tan?
Tanning beds provide about 3x the protection of a person’s non-tanned skin. This pales in comparison to sunblock, which can provide 30x or greater protection. People who think they have a protective tan from tanning beds often overexpose themselves on vacation, leading to higher radiation exposure and greater risk of skin cancer.
What about Vitamin D production?
Vitamin D is produced in the skin. Adequate vitamin D levels are obtained after 20 minutes a week with only the face and hands exposed. In Colorado, it would be nearly impossible to avoid the sun to the point of vitamin D deficiency. Moreover, vitamin D is readily available in milk, fortified orange juice, and vitamin tablets. These are safe ways to get Vitamin D.
What about tanning businesses?
Unlike the tobacco industry, which doesn’t have a product alternative to tobacco, there is an economically viable alternative tan. Spray-on tanning is non-carcinogenic, looks good, and generates income for salons. In Hollywood, this is the only tan that makes sense. Actors want to avoid wrinkles, dark splotches, and an ‘old’ appearance to prolong their careers.
Isn’t parental permission good enough?
A parent’s primary goal is to protect their child. A parent who gives permission to their child to use tanning bed radiation likely does not understand the implications of that permission. If parents should be allowed to decide, by analogy, they should also decide regarding smoking.
By my observation, there is an inverse relationship between an individual’s skin color and their desire to tan. Darker skinned individuals, who tan rapidly, tend to avoid tanning, while lighter skinned persons seek out a tan. Ironically, those very persons that work the hardest to maintain a tan are the ones most at risk from the tan that they seek.
There is no such thing as a safe tan. There is no known safe level of UV radiation exposure.
Skin cancer rates are rising rapidly. It is the duty of society to protect children. Unfortunately, we are yet to see the full ravaging effects of tanning bed use in the U.S., because radiation exposure takes decades to reach its full impact.
Comments
Trackbacks
There are no trackbacks yet.