Booster Shots

Oddities, musings and news from the health world

« Previous Post | Booster Shots Home | Next Post »

Tanning beds as carcinogenic as asbestos and cigarettes

July 28, 2009 |  3:30 pm

Tanning The ultraviolet light used in tanning beds is as carcinogenic as asbestos, arsenic, radium and cigarettes, a special committee of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded. The use of sunlamps had previously been classified only as "probably carcinogenic in humans." Moreover, the committee concluded that all types of UV radiation induce cancer, not just the UV-B that has been implicated in the past. Some tanning salons claim to use only UV-A, which was thought to be safer, but the committee said that is not the case.

The committee of 20 scientists from nine countries met in June and reviewed more than 20 studies in humans, as well as animal studies. They reported online in the journal Lancet Oncology that the risk of skin cancer increases 75% when people start using tanning beds before age 30. They also found that all types of ultraviolet radiation caused tumors, not just UV-B.

UV radiation produces a specific mutation in DNA in skin cells, converting a cytidine base to thymidine, thereby triggering the cancer process. The studies show that this transformation occurs no matter what type of UV radiation is employed.

Previous studies have shown that younger people who use tanning beds regularly are eight times as likely to get melanoma as those who do not. Melanoma is also becoming increasingly prevalent in young people, whereas at one time it was observed mostly in those over age 75. The American Cancer Society urges young people to use bronzing creams rather than tanning beds.

-- Thomas H. Maugh II

Photo credit: Los Angeles Times

Post a comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





Comments (42)

Bronzing creams are the solution? How long before we're told they cause cancer? What about sunscreen? While I'm not surprised to read that tanning beds cause skin cancer (remember the urban legend from the 80s that said they cooked your liver? haha), I'd like to see more studies on how the chemicals we massage into our skin affect our chances of getting skin cancer. I mean, really - how in the world did my great-grandfather and great uncles, fair-skinned Swedes, work outside every day, all day long in the sun, and live into their 90s without getting skin cancer? Ozone layer is thinner, yeah, yeah, but it still seems like there's a bigger picture the research is ignoring.

Oh no!!! They've taken away yet another way of killing myself slowly that allows me to feed my useless vanity. Alas, what will I do? The horror of it all.

As someone who has had an Excision from my neck and the Mohs procedure done on my nose (before age 35) I can say that even the "non-leathal" skin cancers are highly un-pleasant, painful and unsightly. My skin litteraly hurts when I see tanning salons. I'm glad someone has finally taken a proper look at the research on these nasty instruments. No they don't guarentee cancer but to raise the risk by as much as 75% is frightening. I guess, for those that don't believe, it's a "show me the (dead) bodies" proposition. Don't say you weren't warned.

Excellent point Heather. You'd think, from all the dire medical warnings we get these days, that all fair-skinned people would have died in the womb if their mother took a walk down the block during daylight hours. Instead, white folks have prospered fairly well in the deadly world illuminated by...... sunlight. I submit that "the authorities" find another horse to beat.

First off, people blasting Peter for his grammar or spelling -- get a life.

Second, there are two sides to every story. The rising rates of cancer diagnoses are in large part due to better screening techniques that pick "up borderline changes in the skin that were unlikely to cause harm." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6690007.ece

And there are theories by respected doctors that regular exposure to sunlight is better than intermittent exposure. http://www2.canada.com/health/men/moles+melanoma+risk+similar+worldwide/1282949/story.html?id=969365

There's been an overreaction to skin cancer in recent years. Should you avoid sunbathing slathered in baby oil during the summer weekends? Yes, probably. If you're fair skinned, have light eyes, or have a lot of moles, should you be careful about getting burned? Yes. Should you slather on sunscreen and wear a hat and long sleeves everytime you go out? Probably not.

That being said, you should avoid tanning beds, not only because it's possibly dangerous but because having orange-colored skin looks stupid.

Rachael --

How do you check for melanomas - I'm thinking of the deadly type rather than the ones which just sit there. I imagine you have to notice them while they're small and produce no pain or irritation? I don't get much sun now, but I had a few blistering burns growing up - my parents were sorta hippie minded and didn't believe in watching the kids too much. I remember when I got a nasty sunburn at age eight, my Dad berated me for being dumb *afterwards*, rather than suggesting I put something on or leave the beach while we were there.

Wow, holy argumentum ad personam, batman! Peter Peter, pumpkin eater...even though I get what you are saying about being bombarded by all this information, you have to make sure your spelling and grammar are spot on. The bullies in the yard are just waiting for kids like you!

I was diagnoised with melanoma in 2000. I did get it from the tanning beds. I contacted a lawyer and they told me they had never heard that the tanning bed was bad for you. Hope they get it now.

Peter, you're the dummy to not know that tanning beds and the sun are dangerous when exposed to excessively.

I'm guessing you're in the tanning bed industry perhaps?

want to meet a scandinavian-- hang out in the lobby of a surgeon who does the mohs procedure. as for the pumpkin eaters-- i guess your conversation is why the lat is so gun shy of having an open comment board. getta a life or at least risk taking your lap top out into that cancerous sun. gotta go-- have to scratch off those pesky k-spots from my fore arm.

uuuh J.Q Citizen-- you really should go to a mohs surgeon lobby and see the ear and nose clippings. of course there's a starbuck's world of latte. maybe you're lucky to be soy.

oh and heather, you must come from heartier stock: two uncles and my mom plus my saab mechanic having those pesky skin problems. i guess our heads are just more square.

Now, poor grammar frustrates me too, but I think after ONE person said something to Peter, everyone else could have considered the issue taken care of.

It's a really interesting article, and I like LDG's explanation of it all. I was on a vacation in the Mediterranean with a girl who absolutely hated tanning beds because she felt they were a health risk. However, she would spend from 9am-1pm on the beach, then go to lunch, and then return around 2pm until around 4 or 5. Not only is that completely boring day after day, but I would say that she put herself at just about as much risk with that amount of sun exposure so often!

I'd rather suffer from skin cancer than endure another ......... from Rachael weiss. What's up with that nut?

I have Lupus.. skin cancer runs in my family.. recently I went into a tanning bed and after 8 minutes i was not only red as heck but it set off my lupus flare.. its been hell ever since. . I think this article was good but could have gone even further.. like many have said its all about moderation.. but we all live in a society that pushes extremes..

Anything that is unnatural to the body is going to have a negative effect on it. Anybody should be able to figure that one out. It is also easy to figure out that no one can be trusted. It is better to just figure out on your own what is good and what is bad for the body, environment, and everything in general. In some cases, it may be deadly to take one's advice. In some other situations, it may save your life to take their word. It doesn't matter if it is your best friend, or the government that acts like your guardian, not everyone can be trusted, yet some people may be trustable.

All in all, go with what seems natural for the body, not what acts as a replacement.

What happened to investigative journalism? Guess when you write a check to print an ad that is all that is needed these days. What report? Where is the "report" and the specifics? To just print a press release without facts is an example of the modern day news journalist at their finest. As a matter of fact this article made the headlines of DUH magazine. We are smart enough Americans to know that too much sun puts you at risk, but to compare it to mustard gas? So perhaps all the troops need to refile VA claims since the military says we were not exposed to anything dangerous in the Middle East. I guess they are wrong because we spent years in 130 degree sun...which means....ahhhh "Mustard Gas exposiure"!

 


Advertisement


The Latest | news as it happens

Recent Posts
test |  March 15, 2011, 4:00 pm »
Booster Shots has moved |  July 12, 2010, 6:02 pm »


Categories


Archives
 



In Case You Missed It...