tanTALK - View Single Post - P53's -- Repeated UV irradiation protects against UV induced DNA damage.

Don Smith · 05-08-2008, 09:52 PM

The paper is well worth getting for your library. It is "good news" because it shows what salon owners already know--that the development of facultative pigmentation, a.k.a., a tan, via controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure provides protection in direct proportion to the level of tan.

In this study they compared three "protocols" / Protocol A had a cumulative dose of 1900 J/m^2 (19 SED); Protocol B had a cumulative dose of 2900 J/m^2 (29 SED); and Protocol C had a cumulative dose of 4200 J/m^2 (42 SED). [Note: These doses were calculated using the CIE AS, not the FDA EAS.]

I am meeting with some of the authors in Washington, DC later this month and, after I get some answers to some questions I have regarding the data in this paper, I will have more to say about this important paper. In the meantime, "be comforted" by the fact that this is a good "3rd party reference" showing that a tan is photoprotective (even if the dermatolgists don't/won't/can't/are too stupid to agree).

05-08-2008, 09:52 PM	#5 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,495 Rep Power: 10	Re: P53's -- Repeated UV irradiation protects against UV induced DNA damage. The paper is well worth getting for your library. It is "good news" because it shows what salon owners already know--that the development of facultative pigmentation, a.k.a., a tan, via controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure provides protection in direct proportion to the level of tan. In this study they compared three "protocols" / Protocol A had a cumulative dose of 1900 J/m^2 (19 SED); Protocol B had a cumulative dose of 2900 J/m^2 (29 SED); and Protocol C had a cumulative dose of 4200 J/m^2 (42 SED). [Note: These doses were calculated using the CIE AS, not the FDA EAS.] I am meeting with some of the authors in Washington, DC later this month and, after I get some answers to some questions I have regarding the data in this paper, I will have more to say about this important paper. In the meantime, "be comforted" by the fact that this is a good "3rd party reference" showing that a tan is photoprotective (even if the dermatolgists don't/won't/can't/are too stupid to agree).