Study: Tanning beds cause 170K skin cancer cases yearly
Indoor tanning is to blame for more than 170,000 cases of non-melanoma skin cancer in the United States each year, a new study finds.
"The numbers are striking - hundreds of thousands of cancers each year are attributed to tanning beds,'' senior study author Dr. Eleni Linos, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of California - San Francisco, said in a written statement. "This creates a huge opportunity for cancer prevention.''
Non-melanoma skin cancers comprise the most common form of the disease in the U.S., accounting for 2 million new cases each year according to estimates from the National Cancer Institute.
Is it skin cancer?
In one of the most extensive studies on the link to date, researchers analyzed 12 earlier studies involving more than 9,300 patients with non-melanoma skin cancer. Analysis revealed that compared with those who never used indoor tanning, indoor tanning was associated with a 67 percent risk increase for developing squamous cell carcinoma and a 29 percent higher risk of developing basal cell carcinoma.
"These cancers may not be lethal, but they can be disfiguring," Dr. Craig Devoe, oncologist at North Shore-LIJ Health System's Center for Melanoma and Rare Skin Cancers in Great Neck N.Y., told WebMD. "To get tan, the ultraviolet rays must cause damage to your DNA," added Devoe, who was not involved in the study. "This is how you get tan."
- CDC: Skin cancer risks for young adults on the rise
- Probe: Tanning salons lure teens with lies
- UV photographs may reveal potential for skin cancer
Using U.S. estimates, the researchers then calculated indoor tanning contributes to more than 72,000 cases of squamous cell carcinoma and more than 98,000 cases of basal cell carcinoma.
Patients who were exposed to indoor tanning before age 25 were at a greater risk for basal cell carcinoma, a slow-growing cancer that is the most common type of non-melanoma skin cancer in the U.S. in people over 40 years old.
"This suggests a critical period for exposure during early life and a potential dose-response effect," the authors wrote in the study, published in the Oct. 2 issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). "They conclude: "We hope that these findings can support public health campaigns and motivate increased regulation to reduce exposure to this carcinogen, especially during early life."
The authors acknowledge study limitations, such as tanning beds changing over the years from predominantly high output of UVB rays to UVA output, but they point out both types of radiation can cause significant skin damage.
"Australia and Europe have already led the way in banning tanning beds for children and teenagers, and Brazil has completely banned tanning beds for all ages,'' said Linos. "I hope that our study supports policy and public health campaigns to limit this carcinogen in the United States.''
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer calls UV-emitting tanning devices "carcinogenic to humans," reinforcing the WHO's recommendation to avoid sunlamps and tanning beds.
Currently, there are about 19,000 indoor tanning businesses in the U.S., according to industry estimates.
"UV exposure, whether from the sun or a sunbed, has many benefits," John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association, said to USA Today. He cites research showing indoor tanning provides vitamin D which has been tied to protective health benefits. "As with most human activities, there are also risks. It seems the risks continue to grab the headlines in the media, while the benefits remain unnoticed and unpromoted," said Overstreet.
Popular in Health
- Flesh-eating disease victim gets bionic hands
- Shocking study: Math skills improved by electric stimulus
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- Depression may double stroke risk for middle-aged women
- Handbags may contain more germs than average toilet flush
- Doctor: Gel manicures a potential skin cancer risk
- CDC: One in five U.S. kids has mental health disorder
- Smoking marijuana linked to lower diabetes risk in study
Actually, a tan is nature's way of protecting the body from sunburn. IT IS NATURAL. If you are able to get a base tan, you should not burn, DECREASING your risk for skin cancer, and INCREASING your Vitamin D levels. Vitamin D being essential in fighting or preventing various diseases and illnesses. The propaganda being put out would suggest we all hide from the sun, an important part of LIFE. Common sense would say that moderation would be the best road to take when it comes to UV light. Guess what tanning salons do? They offer UV in a controlled atmosphere. Take it from someone that has been severely deficient in Vitamin D. 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. 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, 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.
The authors acknowledge study limitations, such as tanning beds changing over the years from predominantly high output of UVB rays to UVA output, but they point out both types of radiation can cause significant skin damage.
The key here is "study limitations" it makes me wonder where their statistics are coming from. Are they current? Are they over the course of a decade? Several decades? It really isn't clear.
What portion of this report on increased skin cancer is a result from people with home tanning beds, using them without the trained staff on the proper and safest way to use them? How many were a result of Dermatologists using them to treat skin conditions in their own offices? This article doesn't quite tell the entire story. This just states "indoor tanning" to lead the reader to believe it is entirely one industry contributing to the statistics. There are many sources of indoor tanning be it home units, salons, or dermatologist offices. If they are so dangerous as the claim of this article, then why would they be used to treat cosmetic skin conditions such as Psoriasis?
As I said before, moderation is the key here. Something salons take far more seriously than what they are credited for. Too many people jump on the bandwagon of how indoor tanning is dangerous without knowing the benefits.
"UV exposure, whether from the sun or a sunbed, has many benefits," John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association, said to USA Today. He cites research showing indoor tanning provides vitamin D which has been tied to protective health benefits. "As with most human activities, there are also risks. It seems the risks continue to grab the headlines in the media, while the benefits remain unnoticed and unpromoted," said Overstreet.
It is time to change that. People need to know there are benefits. My story is one of them. So many articles like to lead people to believe that tanning is pure evil and dangerous, it is not, if you do it the right way. I'm proof of that.
-------------------------------------------------------
Well duh.
So it kills 170 thousand a year... Lets talk about alcohol, tobacco, driving, skydiving and other horrible things we don't need to do, but do! Run scared human run, run until you find somewhere safe, but where!?! Let's just chop this one up as another mechanism for population control! Who cares if your neighbor wants to die before you, how does that concern your life?
So it kills 170 thousand a year... Lets talk about alcohol, tobacco, driving, skydiving and other horrible things we don't need to do, but do! Run scared human run, run until you find somewhere safe, but where!?! Let's just chop this one up as another mechanism for population control! Who cares if your neighbor wants to die before you, how does that concern your life?