https://smarttan.com/blog/index.php/derm-tans-are-natures-sunblock/
British dermatology leader Dr. Sam Shuster says that a suntan is not damage — it is nature’s intended design and that anyone who thinks otherwise should “tell that to Darwin.” Shuster’s comments on suntans are published as a portion of the book “Panic Nation: Unpicking the Myths We’re Told About Food and Health” available on www.Amazon.com.
Here is an excerpt about sunscreens, UV exposure and base tans:
What then should we do about UV exposure and sunscreens? The short answer is that in moderate climates like the UK, apart from avoiding sunburn and staring at the sun, it doesn’t matter what we do, because the risk of exposure is trivial. Of course, children have to learn how much sun they can take without burning, and their parents need to ensure they get a gradual UV exposure in order to achieve a protective tan (that is more important in children with ginger hair and freckles, most of whom will need to take care not to burn throughout adult life). In the UK, there is no point in trying to minimise sun exposure to avoid skin cancer because our sun is usually too weak to be a danger. Although sunscreens will reduce epithelioma formation they have not been shown to prevent melanomas. The use of a sun blocker in countries such as the UK could be harmful, by impairing Vitamin D synthesis in the skin, causing a risk of osteoporosis.
We still have a lot to learn about what may be the silent benefits of sun exposure. We do not know the significance and purpose of the profound changes in immune mechanisms, the extraordinary improvement in mood and the alleged decreased risk in bowel and prostatic cancer experienced after sun exposure. We may do more harm avoiding these advantages than anything we might gain from the uncertain benefits of sun avoidance.
But not all of the sun’s benefits are uncertain, particularly the protective effect of a suntan. Since there is some epidemiological evidence to suggest that sunburn in children may be more harmful later in life, parents have been told that sun exposure must be avoided in childhood. However, if you take a close look at people who were sunburnt as children, you will see areas of white skin that doesn’t tan because the pigment cells have been lost by the sunburning. Such skin will always be oversensitive to sun. It is evident that the original sunburn, and subsequent damage, would have been less had there already been a protective tan.
Excessive avoidance and UV screening is a danger because it does not allow a tan, nature’s own sun block, to develop and as a result exposure is likely to cause sun-burn. The dogma, now fossilised in print, is that any tan is a sign of skin damage. Tell that to Darwin. Pigmented melanocytes in the skin are a system that protects it from excessive UV, which evolved long before the advent of sunscreens. Even if there was hard evidence that melanoma was UV-induced it would be all the more important to keep a protective tan.
It must now be evident that the effect of the sun on the skin is in desperate need of illumination, and that the prophylactic message, particularly on melanoma, is unreliable. By presenting the fragility of the case against the dangers of UV I hope I will provoke consideration of real cause of melanoma.
Dr. Sam Shuster is Emeritus Professor of Dermatology at the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, and Honorary Consultant to the Department of Dermatology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. This is an edited version of a chapter in “Panic Nation? Unpicking the myths we’re told about food and health” edited by Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks. Buy this book from www.amazon.com.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
U.S. Derms Refer 900,000 To Sunbeds: Survey
Based on the survey, dermatologists refer an estimated 900,000 people to sunbeds in the United States every year.
“Two of my doctors told me I needed to tan: my dermatologist for my skin psoriasis, and my regular doctor for depression from not getting enough sun light…Tanning did help a lot,” said Robert Van Dine, a patron at Midnight Sun & Cruise in Holland, Mich., a Smart Tan member facility.
According to Smart Tan an estimated 1.5 million Americans utilize tanning salons to informally treat psoriasis in lieu of phototherapy in a dermatologist’s office. Phototherapy procedures use the same equipment found in tanning salons. In fact, the Mayo Clinic cites UV light therapy as the standard of care for treating these ailments.
But many patients are referred to tanning salons instead by physicians, as the cost of a tanning session is almost always less expensive than the health insurance co-payment of a dermatology-based phototherapy session. As a result, the number of phototherapy treatments by dermatologists has plummeted.
•In 1993 dermatologists administered 873,000 visits for phototherapy sessions.
•By 1998, that number dropped by 94 percent according to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which in 2002 described phototherapy sessions as “a safe and effective treatment for psoriasis.”
“If any UV exposure were as dangerous as a recent statement from the AAD claims, then dermatologists would be guilty of violating their Hippocratic oath for using UV in what they describe as burning dosages to treat purely cosmetic skin conditions,” said Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy. “Professional tanning facilities are trained to deliver non-burning dosages of UV light to create a cosmetic tan, but a side effect is that people are treating all sorts of conditions informally and effectively. What we’re really seeing is dermatology’s anger for the loss of billions of dollars in phototherapy treatments in their offices, as consumers choose a more economical and convenient method of self-care.”
Professional indoor tanning facilities promote a balanced message about UV exposure — acknowledging the risks of overexposure. In contrast, AAD continues to mislead the public by suggesting in its statements that any UV exposure causes melanoma, which completely misrepresents the science. “This has never been a health care debate,” said Levy. “This is the cosmetic dermatology industry attacking indoor tanning for strictly financial gain.”
The AAD has come under fire from within its ranks for its position on melanoma. In 2008, Dr. Bernard Ackerman — a pioneer in dermatology pathology recognized as a Master Dermatologist by AAD — backed up Smart Tan’s position about the complex relationship between UV and melanoma in the Dermatology Times stating, “There is no compelling evidence that sun tan parlors have induced a single melanoma,” and that any regulation of the tanning market “…should be predicated on evidence and not on accusation.”
In fact, AAD spokesperson Dr. James Spencer admitted in a May 2008 article in Dermatology Times that, “We don’t have direct experimental evidence,” referring to the fact that research has not shown a causative mechanism between indoor tanning and melanoma. The studies the AAD has referred to do not show causation — only weak correlations that are confounded by study design. The organization continues to omit refuting evidence and studies and the fact that most studies don’t show a correlation.
Further, while AAD is lobbying to restrict indoor tanning, its lobbying efforts have always called for phototherapy treatment in dermatology offices to be exempted from further restriction.
“It’s time that researchers and the media start asking tough questions about why dermatologists refuse to talk about these issues and their real motivations around their attacks on indoor tanning,” Levy said.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Quote of the week: Cosmetic Co. Says Sunscreen ‘A Plastic Bag’
From "The Truth about SPF Index & Sun Protection" at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-truth-about-spf-index--sun-protection-119179429.html
"Almost 99% of the vitamin D we make comes from sun exposure. With the overuse of SPF, Americans are becoming more vitamin D deprived, resulting in an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and PMS symptoms. In addition to the deprivation of vitamins, this over-exposure to the sun-protecting chemicals creates a "plastic bag" effect which suffocates the skin." - BIONOVA cosmetics press release
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)