Tanning beds, all bad?

liftsiron

liftsiron

Community Veteran, Longtime Vet
posted by jboldman on CEM

Tanning beds, all bad?

We have been inundated with negative reports of the harmful effects of artiicial tanning beds with the potential for skin damage. Now, a new study finds that tanning is associated with optimal Vitamin D status and improved bone mineral density.

jb

================================

Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6):1645-9. Related Articles, Links


Tanning is associated with optimal vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration) and higher bone mineral density.

Tangpricha V, Turner A, Spina C, Decastro S, Chen TC, Holick MF.

Vitamin D, Skin and Bone Research Laboratory and the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118, USA.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D is made in the skin on exposure to solar radiation, and it is necessary to optimal skeletal health. Subjects who use a tanning bed that emits ultraviolet B radiation (290-315 nm) are likely to have higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations than do subjects who do not regularly use a tanning bed. OBJECTIVE: The first objective of this study was to ascertain whether subjects who regularly use a tanning bed have higher 25(OH)D concentrations than do subjects who do not use a tanning bed. The second objective was to ascertain whether higher 25(OH)D concentrations correlated positively with bone mineral density. DESIGN: This cross-sectional analysis examined 50 subjects who used a tanning bed at least once a week and 106 control subjects. Each subject gave a blood specimen for measurement of serum 25(OH)D and parathyroid hormone concentrations. Each subject underwent bone mineral density testing of the hip and spine. RESULTS: Subjects who used a tanning bed had serum 25(OH)D concentrations 90% higher than those of control subjects (115.5 +/- 8.0 and 60.3 +/- 3.0 nmol/L, respectively; P <0.001). Subjects who used a tanning bed had parathyroid hormone concentrations 18% lower than those of control subjects (21.4 +/- 1.0 and 25.3 +/- 0.8 pg/mL, respectively; P=0.01). Tanners had significantly higher BMD and z scores at the total hip than did nontanners. CONCLUSION: The regular use of a tanning bed that emits vitamin D-producing ultraviolet radiation is associated with higher 25(OH)D concentrations and thus may have a benefit for the skeleton.
__________________
__________________
 
Understanding the Risks: Relative vs. Absolute Risks

Tanning beds: What do the numbers really mean?

May. 7th, 2010 by Pia Christensen
Filed under: Health data, Health journalism, Studies

This is a guest post from Ivan Oransky, M.D., editor of Reuters Health and AHCJ’s treasurer, has written at my invitation.


May has been declared “Melanoma Awareness Month” or “Skin Cancer Awareness Month“ – depending on which group is pitching you – and reporters are doubtlessly receiving press releases and announcements from a number of groups, including the Melanoma Research Foundation, the Skin Cancer Foundation, hospitals, doctors and other organizations.
Those press releases often point to the World Health Organization, which reports that “use of sunbeds before the age of 35 is associated with a 75% increase in the risk of melanoma” – a statistic often repeated in news stories about tanning beds.

But what does that really mean? Is it 75 percent greater than an already-high risk, or a tiny one? If you read the FDA’s “Indoor Tanning: The Risks of Ultraviolet Rays,” or a number of other documents from the WHO and skin cancer foundations, you won’t find your actual risk.

That led AHCJ member Hiran Ratnayake to look into the issue in March for The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal, after Delaware passed laws limiting teens’ access to tanning salons. The 75 percent figure is based on a review of a number of studies, Ratnayake learned. The strongest such study was one that followed more than 100,000 women over eight years.
But as Ratnayake noted, that study “found that less than three-tenths of 1 percent who tanned frequently developed melanoma while less than two-tenths of 1 percent who didn’t tan developed melanoma.” That’s actually about a 55 percent increase, but when the study was pooled with others, the average was a 75 percent increase. In other words, even if the risk of melanoma was 75 percent greater than two-tenths of one percent, rather than 55 percent greater, it would still be far below one percent.
For some perspective on those numbers, Ratnayake interviewed Lisa Schwartz, M.D.,M.S., whose work on statistical problems in studies and media reports is probably familiar to many AHCJ members. “Melanoma is pretty rare and almost all the time, the way to make it look scarier is to present the relative change, the 75 percent increase, rather than to point out that it is still really rare,” Schwartz, a general internist at Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt., told him.
In a nutshell, the difference between skin doctors’ point of view and Schwartz’s is the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. Absolute risk just tells you the chance of something happening, while relative risk tells you how that risk compares to another risk, as a ratio. If a risk doubles, for example, that’s a relative risk of 2, or 200 percent. If it halves, it’s .5, or 50 percent. Generally, when you’re dealing with small absolute risks, as we are with melanoma, the relative risk differences will seem much greater than the absolute risk differences. You can see how if someone is lobbying to ban something – or, in the case of a new drug, trying to show a dramatic effect – they would probably want to use the relative risk.

This is not an argument for or against tanning beds. It’s an argument for clear explanations of the data behind policy decisions. For some people, the cosmetic benefits of tanning beds – and the benefit of vitamin D, for which there are, of course, other sources – might be worth a tiny increase in the risk of melanoma. For others, any increased risk of skin cancer is unacceptable. (And of course, for the tanning industry, the benefits can be measured in other ways – dollars.) But if reporters leave things at “a 75 percent increase,” you’re not giving your readers the most important information they need to judge for themselves.
So when you read a study that says something doubles the risk of some terrible disease, ask: Doubles from what to what?
Related
These numbers also might come up in reporting about the health reform bill as it does in “Indoor Tanning Getting Moment in the Sun” (March 26, 2010). From the story:
Over the past decade, indoor tanning has increasingly been likened to other maligned habits, cigarette smoking in particular.
And with the passage of the new health care bill, government officials are prepared to take that comparison one step further. A 10 percent tax could be levied on indoor tanning as early as July, in an effort to offset some of the health care bill’s multi-billion-dollar budget.
 
There have been lots of reports that bed tanning poses harmful effects to one's health.I have also read that normal tanning causes cancer too! Oh no!So,you only need 10 minutes of exposure to the sun without sunscreen a day in order to produce the correct amount of Vitamin D that your body needs.As a "sin tax" a tax is enforced that levies a 10 percent tax on tanning booths. Article source:newsytype.com/12736-snooki-tax-tanning/
 
why be scared of tanning beds?
You inject steroids into your body like tren and you dont complain.
You are breathing in toxic chemicles everynow and then.. ie painting your house
You are around family and friends who somtimes smoke and you smell it
You takes risks everyday in life, even walking across the road there could be a drunk driver.

IMO, dont worry about whats happening now... worry about whats happening in 20years time if you got skin cancer.. Do what you gotta do now and make the most of it while you can while your young.
You only live once, and besides.. girls who spend atleast 3hours a week in tanning beds (Tanning Addicts) and they dont have cancer.. they just look so brown its disgusting. I watched a TV program once about it.
 
I think when they do scientific research on everything, there will be something bad in it for you. Everything is ok in moderation
 
So true!

Nitszo said:
why be scared of tanning beds?
You inject steroids into your body like tren and you dont complain.
You are breathing in toxic chemicles everynow and then.. ie painting your house
You are around family and friends who somtimes smoke and you smell it
You takes risks everyday in life, even walking across the road there could be a drunk driver.

IMO, dont worry about whats happening now... worry about whats happening in 20years time if you got skin cancer.. Do what you gotta do now and make the most of it while you can while your young.
You only live once, and besides.. girls who spend atleast 3hours a week in tanning beds (Tanning Addicts) and they dont have cancer.. they just look so brown its disgusting. I watched a TV program once about it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Women and Steroids - Female AAS Research
Replies
1
Views
2K
LateStart
L
T
I came across this and seemed to be pretty informative
Replies
17
Views
1K
appleton111
appleton111
V
What’s a “Normal” Testosterone Level and How to Measure Your Test (How to get bloods)
Replies
4
Views
7K
.Vision.
V
liftsiron
Tanning beds, all bad?
Replies
2
Views
1K
shockandawelifter
shockandawelifter
IMT staff
Calcitriol
Replies
0
Views
779
IMT staff
IMT staff
Back
Top