Experts Issue Powerful Tanning Bed Warning

Journal Rates UV Light at Tanning Salon in Same Group of Cancer Risks as Tobacco and Asbestos

(CBS)  Paige Wood started going to tanning salons when she was 18 years old. Now at 27, she's fighting melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer.

"It's definitely been an ongoing battle for me with just remaining optimistic," Wood said.

In the journal Lancet Oncology, an international panel of cancer experts upgrade the warning on tanning beds from "probably to "definitely" able to cause cancer.

"There have been a number of studies showing an increased risk in melanoma and it has been particularly in people who start using tanning beds before the age of 35," said Dr. Jennifer Stein, a Dermatologist at NYU Langone Medical Center.

In those people, the risk of melanoma increases by 75 percent, reports CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook. Over the past three decades, tanning salons have grown in popularity, now numbering 25,000 and attracting 30 million customers in the U.S. Per capita, the top five cities are Pittsburgh, Charleston, W.V., Akron, Fargo and Scottsdale.

"UV exposure damages your skin, it puts you at risk for skin cancer, it makes you get wrinkles and brown spots," Stein said.

From 1980 to 2004, the number of melanomas in 15 to 39 year old white American women increased by 50 percent, according to the National Cancer Institute.

The indoor tanning association told CBS News they have "always emphasized the importance of moderation" when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.

But Paige Wood, and dermatologists, insist they are not worth the risk.

[schotoz]

Membership Alert



TO: ITA Membership



FROM: John Overstreet



I want you to be aware that the ITA is fighting back. The plan is to run the attached ad in the New York Times tomorrow with the goal of holding the media accountable for this outrageous distortion of an issue. The following media alert will accompany the ad:



Dear members of the media,



Attached is a full-page ad that will run in tomorrow?s New York Times condemning the hype related to the recent categorization of tanning beds as a ?Group 1? carcinogen. The Indoor Tanning Association will not stand by and allow some members of the media to unfairly malign our product and the thousands of small business owners who are our members, by grossly exaggerating the risks associated with tanning beds. Because tanning beds produce the same UV light as the sun, OVEREXPOSURE and abuse of our product?just like OVEREXPOSURE to sunlight?is associated with an increased risk for some types of skin cancer. Other items in this category are red wine and salted fish. According to IARC?s report on alcohol, drinking red wine or other alcoholic beverages carries a greater cancer risk than tanning. It is completely irresponsible to compare indoor tanning with mustard gas or arsenic as so many media reports today have done.



We hope you will include our full position in your news report.



Thank you for your consideration,



The cost of running this full page ad is going to be approximately $50,000. If you want to help defray the costs, please get in touch with us today.



Talking Points for Salon Owners



Your customers may have seen recent news stories claiming that scientists say tanning beds are ?as dangerous as arsenic,? or comparing indoor tanning to smoking tobacco. These stories are inaccurate and misleading, and are based on a misunderstanding of the actual research. We have prepared a brief guide for you, to help you answer any questions and concerns your clients may have.



What the news means:



· Tanning beds have been categorized as ?Group 1? by a group of scientists in France. ?Group 1? means there is evidence that the use of tanning beds can increase the risk of skin cancer.



· The information is not very new: sunlight is in the same category as tanning beds, and has been in that category since 1992. Just like sunlight, the light from tanning beds has UV rays that cause your skin to produce melanin.



· Since 1992, thousands of doctors have recommended moderate exposure to sunlight for a variety of health benefits. Oprah guest Dr. Oz Mehmet and Dr. Andrew Weil are two prominent examples.



· Being in the ?Group 1? category does not say anything about the size of the risk, just that there is any risk at all. Some things in the category are very dangerous, like arsenic and mustard gas. Other substances only carry a very small risk, like red wine, beer, and salted fish.



· News stories that say things like ?tanning is as dangerous as arsenic? are flat-out wrong. The scientists have not made that kind of comparison at all, only reporters looking for a scary headline.



· The report itself has not been made available. All the news stories are working off of a press release, and no reporters have actually read the report.



· The IARC is a group of scientists that works with the United Nations. Their report is not a new study; it is a review of a paper from 2006, which itself was a review of 23 studies, some dating to the early 1980s. Those studies had a wide range of findings.



o Of the 23 studies:

§ 5 were excluded for unusable data

§ 6 had results suggesting that tanning beds actually reduce the risk of skin cancer

§ 16 had results within the margin of error ? In an election, experts will say that you shouldn?t trust a poll that shows one candidate ahead by 1%, with a margin of error of 5%.



· Some news stories are including a misleading statistic: that tanning beds increase the risk of melanoma by 75%. This number comes from a study with questionable methods. The study?s authors admit that they did not adjust for factors like outside sun exposure and sun sensitivity. Even if the study is accurate, it does not mean that 75% of tanning bed users will get melanoma, it means that their relative risk is higher. Because the issue is relative risk, when the original risk is very small, a percentage increase that looks big actually translates into a very small added risk.



o To use another example, your annual risk of a fatal car accident is about 0.013%. If that risk were increased by 75%, it would be 0.023%, or about 1 in 4,500. To put that number in perspective, the increase is 10 times smaller than the OSHA guideline for ?acceptable risk.?

[leslyjh]

Tanning is your body?s natural protection against sunburn ? it is what your body is designed to do. Many have referred to this process as ?damage? to your skin, but calling a tan ?damage? is a dangerous oversimplification. Here is why:
Calling a tan damage to your skin is like calling exercise damage to your muscles. Consider, when one exercises you are actually tearing tiny muscle fibers in your body. On the surface, examined at the micro-level, that could be called ?damage.? But that damage on the micro-level is your body?s natural way on the macro-level of building stronger muscle tissue. So to call exercise ?damaging? to muscles would be terribly deceiving. The same can be said of sun exposure: Your body is designed to repair any damage to the skin caused by ultraviolet light exposure. Developing a tan is its natural way to protect against the dangers of sunburn and further exposure. For example, Saying that any ultraviolet light exposure causes skin damage is a dangerous oversimplification. It would be like saying that since water causes drowning, humans should avoid all water. Yes, water causes drowning, but our bodies also need water; we would die without it. Similarly, we need sun exposure; we would die without it. You should also be aware of the fact that many industries benefit from scaring you about any sun exposure ? twisting a proper message of sunburn prevention into an unwarranted message of total sun avoidance. The purveyors of sun-scare, in inexplicable blind zeal for their cause, have made some outlandish and unsupportable statements about sunshine, UV, Vitamin D and tanning. Think about this: Because sunshine is free, there is no powerful pro-sun PR lobby aggressively countering these misstatements. Think about it some more: Just imagine if a large pharmaceutical company did own the sun and was able to send you a bill for your monthly sunshine. The mass-media marketing message you recieve about sunshine ? based on the same science that exists today ? would be completely positive. The unfortunate part is that when it comes to ?sun scare? marketing is more important than science.

[leslyjh]

Tanning is your body?s natural protection against sunburn ? it is what your body is designed to do. Many have referred to this process as ?damage? to your skin, but calling a tan ?damage? is a dangerous oversimplification. Here is why:
Calling a tan damage to your skin is like calling exercise damage to your muscles. Consider, when one exercises you are actually tearing tiny muscle fibers in your body. On the surface, examined at the micro-level, that could be called ?damage.? But that damage on the micro-level is your body?s natural way on the macro-level of building stronger muscle tissue. So to call exercise ?damaging? to muscles would be terribly deceiving. The same can be said of sun exposure: Your body is designed to repair any damage to the skin caused by ultraviolet light exposure. Developing a tan is its natural way to protect against the dangers of sunburn and further exposure. For example, Saying that any ultraviolet light exposure causes skin damage is a dangerous oversimplification. It would be like saying that since water causes drowning, humans should avoid all water. Yes, water causes drowning, but our bodies also need water; we would die without it. Similarly, we need sun exposure; we would die without it. You should also be aware of the fact that many industries benefit from scaring you about any sun exposure ? twisting a proper message of sunburn prevention into an unwarranted message of total sun avoidance. The purveyors of sun-scare, in inexplicable blind zeal for their cause, have made some outlandish and unsupportable statements about sunshine, UV, Vitamin D and tanning. Think about this: Because sunshine is free, there is no powerful pro-sun PR lobby aggressively countering these misstatements. Think about it some more: Just imagine if a large pharmaceutical company did own the sun and was able to send you a bill for your monthly sunshine. The mass-media marketing message you recieve about sunshine ? based on the same science that exists today ? would be completely positive. The unfortunate part is that when it comes to ?sun scare? marketing is more important than science.

[docpeter1953]

From the above article, "...the U.S. Per capita, the top five cities are Pittsburgh, Charleston, W.V., Akron, Fargo and Scottsdale."
-----------------------------------------

Stottsdale? AZ? I'd a thought that with all the sun there you wouldn't want/need a tanning bed, just go outside and cook.
_________________________________

Also from above, "The indoor tanning association told CBS News they have "always emphasized the importance of moderation" when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed."
---------------------------------------------

Yeah, they might "emphasize" this nationally, but I bet the local folks who are making the $$ sure aren't expressing it.

[theMEDIAisWRONG]

this is why there are timers on the beds. this is why the tanning limit is once every 24 hours. i've been working in the tanning industry for a LONG time. when used correctly, tanning beds are completely harmless, they're actually HEALTHY! omg! SHOCK? not at all.. read on....

these people in the media are causing such an epidemic with VITAMIN D deficiency! this is why so many people have osteoporosis. people naturally need the sun and THE MEDIA is hyping up skin cancer and scaring people into hiding from sun. uv rays naturally create the necessary levels of vitamin d in the body, levels that just can't be substituted by milk. ever wonder why you're grumpy in the winter months? no, its not the cold... it's the lack of sun!

ignore this B.S. and get some rays! get 100% more vitamin D than from milk! tan on people<3

[docpeter1953]

Next commercial please.

Me has to wonder about your vested interest in these tanning beds. Reminds me of Big Pharma. You don't need that much sunlight to make adequate and excessive amounts of Vitamin D. Also consider, Vitamin D is fat soluble and XS Vitamin D is stored in fat cells and acquired as needed.

Yes they are probably safe if use is limited, but there are likely very many eyes turned away from "proper" use and turned toward "hand me the cash."

[displeased]

You tanning bed people act as if we need your tanning beds to survive. From what I understand, we only need 15 minutes of sunlight to get the proper dose of vitamin D. And does you tanning bed have any answers to how excessive exposure to sunlight affects the skin's appearance during the aging process? Leather comes to mind.

[lisa9009]

you can get sufficient vitamin d from getting several minutes of sun a day on your hands and face. milk is also fortified with vitamin d. the fact that you work in the tanning industry gives you zero authority on the health effects. certainly you didn't have to go to medical school. just about anyone can work in that industry