Tanning beds are deadly: new study
12:00a.m. 15th January 2008
What will you end up paying if you decide to get a fake tan on a sunbed?
Researchers have found that for those under 35, a trip to the solarium to maintain that “healthy glow” could end up costing you your life.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has found that the chances of developing the deadliest form of skin cancer, a melanoma, increased by 22% with just one trip to a tanning bed.
Melanomas are the rarest form of skin cancer, but those under 35 raise their risk of developing the deadly cancer by 98% with a trip to the solarium.
Queensland Institute of Medical Research scientist Louisa Gordon, who collated the study’s findings, said the research raised serious questions about the rapid growth of the tanning industry.
She said more than 9500 Australians were diagnosed with melanomas each year, and more than 1100 people lost their battle with the cancer.
QIMR estimated between 12 and 62 of those cases could be directly linked to indoor tanning devices.
Dr Gordon is calling for stronger standards for the solarium industry, including banning people aged under 18 from using sun beds.
“Solariums emit stronger UVB rays, stronger than the outdoor sun ... it’s very dangerous, it’s very high levels of radiation that we shouldn’t be exposed to,” she said.
“I don’t think there should be (a solarium industry) but we shouldn’t have a cigarette industry, either.”
Sunshine Coast local medical association president Dr Mason Stevenson said the research findings came as no surprise.
“It reinforces the call by the AMA to ban solarium access to anyone under 18 years of age and reinforces the need for either one of two things – the total ban on solariums full stop, or strict guidelines as to their usage and strict accreditation of solariums and their operators,” he said.
“I do believe there is a genuine and increasing understanding by the community of the dangers of UVA and UVB light, but sadly beauty, or the perceived beauty associated with tanning, seems to over-ride common sense.”
- 1Megacity will 'destroy tourism'
- 2Woombye woman faces eighth driving charge
- 3Chopper crash victim named
- 4Prison Break, Sunshine Coast style
- 5Paper poort sales reps 'dumped'
- 6TV dinners - less fights
- 7NSW fault blacks out Sunshine Coast
- 8Expansion will create 'Noosangatta'
- 9Paper Poort owner disappears
- 103D mania's back
Recent Comments
This sounds like anti-tanning propaganda to me, especially given the fact that the definitive cause of melanoma is not yet known.
Remember, correlation does not equal causation.
"The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has found that the chances of developing the deadliest form of skin cancer, a melanoma, increased by 22% with just one trip to a tanning bed."
I will be following up with Drs. Gordon/Green (and with their supervisors) and will post the response received (or the fact that no response was received).
"For truth, there is no deadline." [Heywood Broun]
Drs. Gordon/Green:
I would appreciate receiving documentation, i.e., the peer-reviewed scientific publication(s) containing the data, substantiating the two statements below. According to the newspaper account, the genesis of this information came from work done by Dr. Gordon at QIMR.
"The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency study also found an individuals change of developing a melanoma - the rarest but deadliest form of skin cancer - increased by 22 per cent if they had used a solarium just once."
"Melanomas are the rarest form of skin cancer, but those under 35 raise their risk of developing the deadly cancer by 98% with a trip to the solarium."
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Furthermore...
Dr. Gordon claims.."tanning salons were very dangerous and were not a safe or healthy option. Solariums emit stronger UVB rays, stronger than the outdoor sun ... it's very dangerous, it's very high levels of radiation that we shouldn't be exposed to".
Dr.Gordon, tanning beds are a controlled environment to obtain a cosmetic tan; via an exposure schedule, according to skin type and a timer.
The outside sun has no such controls. The suns intensity is subject to such variables as time of day, time of year, cloud cover, pollutants, altitude, and reflective surfaces such as sand, snow, and water. By saying the sunbeds are stronger than the sun, ignores these facts.
"Please note, unfortunately our media here have taken a few points of our recent media release out of context including the statement around 'if they had used a solarium just once'."
A retraction/correction is in order.
- Let's see the full email first - send it to news@thedaily.com.au - Editor
- Thanks for that and I want to confirm that the suggestion in the story that one time salon users were at risk was incorrect. I appreciate you pointing out the error. The study, however, clearly highlights the risk of long-term tanning salon use, particularly for the young. - Editor.
Moreover, although the study may have reached the conclusion that solaria use induces melanoma, the facts don't support that position.
"Facts are stubborn things." [Hubbard]
The QIMR report used assumptions and discount rates favorable to the pre-ordained premise of the study, i.e., that solaria constitute a public danger in Australia, and also used studies that lack scientific validity to support the notion that solaria use induces melanoma. However, when more realistic assumptions and discount rates are used, and when the studies that lack scientific validity are eliminated, there was no (zero) increased risk of developing melanoma as a result of solaria use.
The QIMR report (in my opinion) should be viewed as a political statement intended to substantiate a pre-ordained premise and not viewed as a valid scientific document.
What if the study (click on the link below) by Trevor Marshall, PhD at the Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology is correct?
http://www.prweb.com/printer.php?prid=63...
What if "Marshall's research has demonstrated how ingested vitamin D (supplements) can actually block VDR (vitamin D nuclear receptor) activation, THE OPPOSITE EFFECT TO THAT OF SUNSHINE (UVR)" is correct?
And "what if" the statement attributed to Dr. Marshall - "Vitamin D deficiency, long interpreted as a cause of disease, is more likely the result of the disease process, and increasing intake of vitamin D (from supplements) often makes the disease worse" is correct?
Given the fact that (according to QIMR) "37% to 67% of the healthy population" in Australia have insufficient levels of vitamin D, and "what if" vitamin D stimulated by UVR from sunlight (or at a solarium) turns out to be more beneficial than the supplementary form, would regulations damaging to the Australian solarium industry be good or bad?
It will be interesting to this "seeker of truth" to see if you cover the exiting Marshall study adequately and accurately.
Maybe there's something in the fact that humans have co-existed with UV for millions of years before we had so many ways of hiding from it.... and now we are warned and scared away from any exposure at all that the incidence of so called UV related diseases have increased...??? maybe they are UV related..?? Maybe from too much..?? Maybe from TOO LITTLE..?? and not just enough...
How about doing a study on the people that use controlled solaria and don't have these diseases (which you'll find there are millions) and maybe the answers for prevention lay within their bodies..?? or are they just the lucky ones..??
I'm with the "TruthSeeker" on this one... how about less guess work.
Have your say
We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments should be on-topic and not abusive. Comments are checked before publication.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Your comments will be checked, for legal reasons, before being posted live.
Thanks again for contributing to the Daily's online community.
We value your views.
Comment again