   |  | | Why buying a tanning booth for the Alaskan governor's mansion is a bad idea | By Mike Magee, MD
This week we learned that VP candidate Sarah Palin had installed a tanning booth in the Governor's Mansion in Alaska. When the news broke, the first to react was the Tanning Booth Association advocates. Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said “People need to remember that indoor tanning was invented in Europe in light-deprived Northern European countries as a therapeutic exercise. It should not be a surprise to anyone that an Alaskan turns to indoor tanning.” Not shying away from the obvious juxtaposition with Presidential candidate John McCain's challenge with Melanoma, Levy continues: “McCain’s condition — attributed to years of sunburn on his type I skin as a prisoner of war in Vietnam — and Palin’s tanning bed should allow the tanning community the opportunity to tell our story correctly,” Levy said.
What are the real facts when it comes to Tanning Beds, Cancer, Addiction and Health?
We live in a culture that still places a high premium on youth, good looks and glamour. And nothing says “glamorous” more than a deep tan, or so it seems. That’s why you may have noticed a surge in tanning booths in your local community.
Tanning is big business. And young people, in particular, are plunking their money down and climbing into the booths – even though many of them realize there is a health danger associated with tanning. Consider the words of Casey Brooks, a typical U.S. college student, who was quoted recently in The New York Times: “If I have a big event to go to, like my sorority formal or a wedding, I’ll go to a tanning salon three times the week before. But then I’ll cut back for the rest of the month. I try not to go too often. I am nervous that this could cause cancer and wrinkles. But, then again, I don’t want to be pale.”1
When it comes to good health or a good tan – a good tan seems to be winning out.
Consider just how fast the tanning salon business is growing. In the United States, there are 25,000 plus tanning outlets, with 160,000 employees serving some 30 million customers.2 At $20 to $50 dollars per session, with beauty add-ons, that represents more than $2 billion in spending per year.1,2 Across the Atlantic, in Britain, more than 3 million people partake, with nearly 1 in 5 of these customers paying for more than 100 tanning sessions per year.3
Most of the growth has occurred in the past 30 years, at a time when skin cancer rates have also soared. In fact, approximately 50% of all new cancers now are skin cancers.4,5 They come in three forms, arising from three different cells that live in the outer layer or epidermis of the skin. In 2006, approximately 1.3 million Americans will discover they have skin cancer. About 70% of these will arise from the bottom basal cells and therefore be called basal cell carcinomas. About 23% will arise from the surface thin squamous cells and be termed squamous cell carcinomas. And some 7% will arise from the pigment-producing melanocytes and be called melanomas.4 Each tumor behaves somewhat differently, with melanomas most likely to metastasize and therefore most likely to cause death, which in 2006 will be the fate of some 7,500 Americans.6 All three forms are on a steep incline, with rates 3 or 4 times higher than 3 decades ago.7
The American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization and a host of others say exposure to ultraviolet rays from the sun or from tanning booths is the primary culprit.8,9,10 Studies reveal that the rays, including ultraviolet A, which damages not only the surface epidermis but the connective tissues and vessels below, and ultraviolet B, which is prone to quick surface burns, may cause cancer in three different ways. First, they disrupt DNA, resulting in mutations that can cause cells to grow out of control. Second, they can disorder oxygen metabolism in the cell, damaging orderly function of molecules. And third, they can locally interfere with the skin’s immune defense system, making it more likely that a cancer can arise unchecked.10
None of this particularly impresses Lynne McFadden, a 28-year-old law student in the U.K. In a recent feature article, she said: “Fake tan is fine, but after a sunbed treatment I’m on a mini-high.... I always feel in a good mood after a session. So much so that, when I come out, the first thing I do is book the next one.” 3
The “fake tan” product she refers to is one of a series of rapidly growing products that apply a colorless sugar to the outer skin to dye it and make it darker. The products give people the “look,” which is harmless, but not the unique “feeling” that seems to accompany a tanning session. Where does the “feeling” come from? Well, studies have now revealed that UV rays cause the release of endorphins and other neuropeptides from skin cells.10,11 The mood elevation is so distinct that, in blinded studies, test subjects placed in identical appearing tanning booths can immediately distinguish whether they are receiving UV radiation by the presence or absence of “the high” associated with it; a feeling strong enough to keep a large portion of the tanning customers going back for more.8
While “getting hooked” on a product that can cause cancer might generally concern all – save, perhaps, the tobacco industry -- it does not appear to concern the tanning booth industry’s lobbying group, The Indoor Tanning Association. They embrace it and run with it, saying the experience is “more than just a good tan; [customers] also enjoy the positive psychological and physiological effects of regular exposure to ultraviolet light.”2 The group’s trade journal doesn’t shy away from cancer either, echoing the tobacco industry’s arrogance of the 1960's with head-on attacks such as this: “Moderate tanning has never been linked to skin cancer. In fact, by helping people tan with a reduced incidence of sunburn, indoor tanning may reduce your risk of ever contracting skin cancer.”12 And lastly, they argue that the treatments are effective for activating vitamin D and building strong bones. But the reality is that we get plenty of vitamin D from normal sources. The World Health Organization says that 5 to 15 minutes of casual sun exposure of the hands, face and arms, 2 to 3 times a week during summer months, is sufficient to keep vitamin D levels high.9
German scientist P.G. Unna first noted the association between sunlight and skin cancer in 1894.13 Yet here we are, in the 21st century, unwilling or unable to regulate an industry whose profits come only with rising disease burdens and health costs for the nation.
The AMA has called for three simple and reasonable steps to bring about change. Number one, tanning booths should be off-limits to those 18 or younger. Number two, the FDA should conduct hearings to weigh-in on risk and the need for increased regulation. And number three, booths should come with a Surgeon General’s warning.5
Responsible legislators have advanced bills, and Congress should approve these. As sponsor Carolyn B. Maloney, a Democratic congresswoman from New York says, “New cigarette packs say smoking causes cancer. We don’t want to wait another 50 years to have labels that adequately warn people that tanning beds cause cancer.”1
I agree, and hope all four candidates for President and Vice-President will reject Tanning Booths as a "Healthy Option".
References
1. Singer N. Seeking ‘Healthy’ Look, Tanners Ignore Risks. The New York Times. 18 May 2006.
2. Indoor Tanning Association. Frequently Asked Questions. 2005.
3. Times Online. Are You Tanorexic? 14 Nov. 2004.
4. American Cancer Society. Overview: Skin Cancer - Melanoma. 2008.
5. American Medical Association House of Delegates. Resolution: 428 (A-06). Prohibiting the Sale of Tanning Parlor Ultraviolet Rays to Those Under 18 Years of Age. 30 May 2006.
6. American Academy of Dermatology. Indoor Tanning: All the Dangers of the Outdoors Including Skin Cancer. 24 April 2002.
7. Barrett J. Health: Your Tan Could Kill You. Newsweek. 5 June 2006.
8. Feldman SR, et al. 2004. Ultraviolet exposure is a reinforcing stimulus in frequent indoor tanners. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004; 51:45-51.
9. World Health Organization. The known health effects of UV. 2008.
10. Levins PC., et al. Plasma beta-endorphin and beta-lipoprotein response to ultraviolet radiation. Lancet. 2003; 2:166.
11. Garssen J, et al. A role for neuropeptides in UVB-induced systemic immunosuppression. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 1998; 68:205-10.
12. Skin Cancer Foundation. The Case Against Indoor Tanning. 2008.
13. Skin Cancer Foundation. As Sun Safety Grows, So Do the Benefits of Sunless Tanning.
| | |
|
|  I think we should have health care paid for by the government for everyone. It doesn't have to be elaborate, but a socialized medical system like Canada has."  Hard for the insured, too  Keep health care private!  Work to stay healthy  Testing is important  Please keep it affordable  Everybody deserves a chance  | Dr. Tom Linden's Health Blog | | |  Without the Wilderness, There Can Be No Wilderness Medicine Don't go to the Hospital Without these Ten Safety Tips Ain’t Nobody’s Fault But Mine Can Health Plans Explain Why They Aren't Re-Empowering Primary Care? Post-Election Healthcare Reform Yearning for Universal Coverage Is Not Universal Is America's Health Care System Failing? Probiotics: Hope or Hype? |
|
