Despite objections from the indoor tanning industry, dermatologists present more evidence that there's no such thing as a healthy tan.
Comment: Being a proud member of the paparazzi for over 18 years, I've seen actresses' who started out looking 'good', then 7-10 years later, she looks' horrible. Its a real shame. Bottom line, I' ve never seen women, stars or otherwise, get as ugly as they do in California. Seriously, over the years, look at them. Not even worth it. Tan and healthy's reward is Tan and Ugly. End of Story.
Comment: Birdbath your post lacks any real substance. You come across as being envious of a good looking person with a healthy tan. Do a search on P53's and tanning and educate yourself before you open your mouth without anything to back it up with. This may be difficult for you to understand but I'll give you the link anyway.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:18363705
Comment: If you are vain enough to spend that much time and money on going to tanning beds, you should know that it makes your face look horrible and altogether ages you about ten years with regular use.
Every time I see one of those white girls that looks almost black from tanning I want to laugh in their face. It's like carrying a big sign around that says "I'm insecure".
Comment: The UV and melanoma cause and effect does not jive with the 2007 ACS Cancer Facts & Figures for 2007. The authors estimate that 70% of tanning salon clients are women; industry estimates are higher, but it does not matter. Based on the American Cancer Society Facts & Figures For 2007 Melanoma new cases in 2007 were 59,940 (compare that to Respiratory-229,400; Breast-180,510; and Colon-112,340) with 57% of the cases men and 44% women. Now lets talk mortality rates. Total for melanoma in 2007 was 8,110 (again compare to Respiratory-164,840; Breast-40,910; and Colon-52,180) with 64% of the estimated deaths men and 44% women. If women are the most significant users of tanning salons, why are incidents AND mortality of melanoma significantly lower for women? One cancer death is one too many, but it is also important to note that melanoma has one of the lowest mortality rates among cancers at 13.5% (compare to Respiratory-72%; Breast-23%; and Colon-46%).
The cosmetic and dermatology industries, a $30+ billion union, and their joint campaigns have convinced the media and public that no UV exposure is healthy and that skin cancer cases number over a million and are growing dramatically. Most of these million cases are basal and squamous cell carcinomas which are not even counted in the ACS Facts & Figures because they are generally benign and 99% treatable with no further risk. And yes they are growing because the awareness today is exponentially higher than it was 10 years ago.
No exposure and over exposure are the enemies, not tanning salons. Whether you get your responsible amount of UV in or out-doors, you will be better off than living in the dark, deficient in vitamin D.
Comment: The UV and melanoma cause and effect does not jive with the 2007 ACS Cancer Facts & Figures for 2007. The authors estimate that 70% of tanning salon clients are women; industry estimates are higher, but it does not matter. Based on the American Cancer Society Facts & Figures For 2007 Melanoma new cases in 2007 were 59,940 (compare that to Respiratory-229,400; Breast-180,510; and Colon-112,340) with 57% of the cases men and 44% women. Now lets talk mortality rates. Total for melanoma in 2007 was 8,110 (again compare to Respiratory-164,840; Breast-40,910; and Colon-52,180) with 64% of the estimated deaths men and 44% women. If women are the most significant users of tanning salons, why are incidents AND mortality of melanoma significantly lower for women? One cancer death is one too many, but it is also important to note that melanoma has one of the lowest mortality rates among cancers at 13.5% (compare to Respiratory-72%; Breast-23%; and Colon-46%).
The cosmetic and dermatology industries, a $30+ billion union, and their joint campaigns have convinced the media and public that no UV exposure is healthy and that skin cancer cases number over a million and are growing dramatically. Most of these million cases are basal and squamous cell carcinomas which are not even counted in the ACS Facts & Figures because they are generally benign and 99% treatable with no further risk. And yes they are growing because the awareness today is exponentially higher than it was 10 years ago.
No exposure and over exposure are the enemies, not tanning salons. Whether you get your responsible amount of UV in or out-doors, you will be better off than living in the dark, deficient in vitamin D.
Comment: well if it only takes a genius to know what radiation and such dangerous waves does to the human building block of life then America must be retarded. It looks good, no doubt but all the things that usually do, come with some serious consequences. We do need a little sunlight to feel reguvinized but dont freaking bathe in it. Moderation? has anyone heard that word before?
Comment: ??
Comment: Good question KeriTail. What the latest studies are showing is that the RDA recommendations are woefully low. Experts are now saying that we need up to 10 times the current recommendations. In order to get 2000 IU of vitamin D, you could drink 20 glasses of milk a day or you could eat 100 eggs a day or you could spend a few minutes in the sun or a tanning bed 2 or 3 times a week. In the sun, how long you need to stay will depend on latitude, altitude, time of day, time of year, cloud cover, etc. Also, whether in the sun or in a tanning bed, the length of time required to get adequate vitamin D production will depend on whether you have a tan or not. Don't allow yourself to burn.
Comment: Mushrooms are a good source of Vitamin D also when exposed to even just 5 minutes of sunlight after harvesting, it contains much more vitamin D than milk or eggs. The reason I'm so curious is that I burn easily after 15-20 minutes in the sun and have never tanned. I take a vitamin of calcium + vitamin D because of the daily requirement. Does a supplement not provide any benefits?
Comment: And, for the "King of Insects". Rickets is actually making a comeback in the inner cities of the US. But, to say that cancer isn't influenced by vitamin D levels, you must have been living in a cave for the last couple of years.
Try http://uvtalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=10 for a list of some of the latest information on the subject.
Comment: Vitamin D can be found naturally in foods as well as in fortified dairy products. Why not promote that over excessive exposure to UV rays?
Comment: As far as peer reviewed published studies, how about this review on pubmed? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9335442 . Regular occupational exposure to sunlight actually showed a REDUCTION in risk for melanoma. Nobody is arguing that overexposure (burning) is bad. However, regular nonburning UV exposure has been shown to provide protection from cancer, including CMM. When you post your peer reviewed studies, please post the ones that distinguish between regular moderate exposure and burning.
Comment: I think the point is that regular, over-done exposure (i.e. sunburns) in tanning beds is the real danger. Sun is good for you in moderation; too much sun and burning is bad. That said, Clarins makes amazing sunless tanning products for anyone who's got a prom or wedding to attend.
Comment: http://www.grassrootshealth.org/index.htm has the presentation material from a seminar that was held at the University of California, San Diego.
I disagree with Jim's numbers. He is grossly underestimating the number of lives that could be saved from moderate, regular UV exposure.
According to the American Cancer Society's website, cancer.org, there were expected to be fewer than 11,000 deaths in the United States from skin cancer in 2007.
In 2007, there were 257,000 deaths in the United States from cancers that have been shown to be affected by vitamin D levels. The risk of developing some of these cancers has been shown to be lowered by as much as 60% with proper serum 25(OH)D levels. Below are numbers that were presented by Dr. William Grant at UCSD on April 9th, 2008.
Cancer of the Digestive system 118,000
Cancer of the Breast 41,000
Cancer of the Genital system 51,000
Cancer of the Urinary system 27,000
Lymphoma20,000
TotalCancer deaths 257,000
(46% of all cancer deaths in the U.S. in 2007)
JemalA, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Jan-Feb;57(1):43-66.
Well over 100,000 lives could have been saved in 2007 alone if proper vitamin D levels had been obtained from regular, moderate UV exposure from either the sun or tanning beds.
Comment: In 2007, there were 257,000 deaths in the United States from cancers that have been shown to be affected by vitamin D levels. The risk of developing some of these cancers has been shown to be lowered by as much as 60% with proper serum 25(OH)D levels. Below are numbers that were presented by Dr. William Grant at UCSD on April 9th, 2008.
Cancer of the Digestive system 118,000
Cancer of the Breast 41,000
Cancer of the Genital system 51,000
Cancer of the Urinary system 27,000
Lymphoma20,000
TotalCancer deaths 257,000
(46% of all cancer deaths in the U.S. in 2007)
JemalA, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Jan-Feb;57(1):43-66.
According to the American Cancer Society's website, cancer.org, there were expected to be fewer than 11,000 deaths in the United States from skin cancer in 2007.
If we assume that these numbers are correct and that UV exposure would eliminate 50% of the cancer deaths rather than the projected 60%, that would be 128,500 fewer cancer deaths in 2007.
If we assume that the AAD is right (We have compiled a vast amount of evidence showing that they are wrong about regular, moderate UV exposure causing an increased risk of melanoma, but work with me here.), then let's assume a 100% increase in the risk of dying from skin cancer by tanning.
So now we have over 125,000 lives saved and 11,000 lives lost for a net lives saved of 114,000 or well over 100,000 lives saved by regular, moderate UV exposure EVERY YEAR.
That's over 100,000 fewer deaths from cancer in the United States if everyone tans 2 to 3 times a week for 15 to 20 minutes a session. If the melanoma risk has been exaggerated, that just means it would save even more lives.
I am not willing to give up on the argument on whether tanning increases or decreases your risk of melanoma, but, the argument is moot. Even if tanning did cause an increased risk of melanoma, tanning saves lives.
Comment: Cite your sources for those cancer figures, sir! Or, to paraphrase a common internet demand, "Peer-reviewed published study or it didn't happen."
Vitamin D deficiency causes ricketts, not cancer. I don't see a vast epidemic of ricketts breaking out in the US. I do, however, see spiking levels of skin cancers in very young patients. The International Agency for Research on Cancer published an excellent study on the link between melanoma and indoor tanning, especially in tanners under 35, in the March 1, 2007 issue of the International Journal of Cancer. I encourage you to look it up on PubMed.
Comment: The writers did a fine job of parroting the opinions of the anti-tanning dermaterrorists who are the cause of the current epidemic of vitamin D deficiency.
They could have saved their time writing and just reprinted an AAD press release, for all the value of this story. The writers don't seem to have even read the information on the www.sunlightscam.com website referenced in their story.
The writers seem to have an intellectual disconnect between the benefits of vitamin D from moderate exposure to UV light and moderate exposure to UV light in the controlled environment of a tanning salon.
More than 45,000 people die every year in the US from cancers that are a consequence of vitamin D deficiency.
Newsweek and dermatologists, hiding from the Sun together in the shade, are in a much more dangerous place than tanned people visiting a tanning salon a couple times a week.
Tanning beds have never caused the death of a single person. Insufficient exposure to UV light (Vitamin D deficiency) is killing hundreds of people every day.
Why isn't Newsweek reporting that? It would have required actual reporting.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
STRATEGIES Harmonix, creator of Rock Band and Guitar Hero, is changing videogames.
Sponsored by
|
CAMPAIGN 2008 John McCain's choice to manage the GOP convention this summer is lobbyist Doug Goodyear, whose firm once represented Burma's repressive regime.
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
