|
The Benefits of UV Light Read and discuss all the great news about UV light and Vitamin D. |
| LinkBack | Thread Tools |
05-26-2007, 10:47 AM | #1 (permalink) |
Join Date: Nov 30 2000 Location: Ontario Age: 61
Posts: 38,594
Rep Power: 107 | Misinterpretation Of Data And Teens Misinterpretation Of Data The Truth Behind The Campaign To Ban Teenage Tanning by Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith A false, deceptive, biased and misleading premise that the skin of young people is more sensitive to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and a misinterpretation of data, i.e., that “80 percent of lifetime UVR exposure happens by age 18” provided the original rationale for the strident campaign by the dermatology community to ban teenagers from tanning. Therefore, state and local legislators considering adopting provisions that would ban teen tanning must recognize they are basing their decision on information that the dermatology community knows—or should know—is false, deceptive, biased and misleading. State and local legislators also must understand that the dermatology community tried for several years— unsuccessfully—to get the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban all indoor tanning in face-to-face meetings with representatives from the indoor tanning industry. The fact that the dermatology community did not convince FDA representatives, who have a high level of scientific competency, to ban any aspect of indoor tanning must be kept in mind by state and local legislators. Do Teenagers Have Skin That Is More Sensitive To UVR? According to the dermatology community, the underlying premise to ban teenagers from tanning is that the skin of young people is more sensitive to ultraviolet radiation (UVR), especially the more erythemal UVB wavelengths, i.e., those that cause the most skin damage. Is this a valid premise? A landmark scientific article by Cox. Diffey and Farr titled “The Relationship Between Chronological Age And The Erythemal Response To Ultraviolet B Radiation” published in the British Journal of Dermatology [1992: 126, 315-319], definitively shows that the skin of young people is not more sensitive to UVR. Therefore, the premise is false, deceptive, biased and misleading. The article’s authors stated that, “However, there was no difference between the two groups (young and old) in either the visually assessed MED (Minimal Erythemal Dose) or the calculated UVB dose required to produce a constant degree of mild erythema.” Authors’ Note: In fact, some of the younger individuals in this study had the highest tolerance to UVR! 80 Percent Of UVR Exposure By Age 18? A May 1986 article by Stern, et al, titled “Risk Reduction For Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer With Childhood Sunscreen Use” was published in the Archives of Dermatology. The article’s authors stated that “Using a mathematical model based on epidemiologic data, we quantified the potential benefits of using a sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 15 and estimate that regular use of such a sunscreen during the first 18 years of life would reduce the lifetime incidence by these tumors by 78 percent.” The article never stated that 80 percent of lifetime UVR exposure comes in the first 18 years of life. Rather, the authors said if you use a sunscreen with an SPF 15 during the first 18 years of life, you might reduce your lifetime risk of developing a non-melanoma skin cancer (Basal Cell Carcinoma or Squamous Cell Carcinoma) by 78 percent (almost 80 percent). That is far different from saying that 80 percent of a person’s lifetime exposure to UVR comes in their first 18 years of life! The Proof Is In The Pudding A scientific paper by Godar, Urbach, Gasparro and van der Leun titled “Childhood UV Doses: Reality Versus Myth” was presented July 16, 2002 at the American Society of Photobiology meeting in Quebec City, Canada by Diane Godar, Ph.D., of the FDA. The abstract of the presentation stated the following: “Since 1986, people were told they got about 80 percent of their lifetime UV dose by the age of 18. This myth originated from a paper that concluded diligent use of sunscreen (SPF 15 or higher) during the first 18 years of life could reduce the lifetime incidence of non-melanoma skin cancers by 78 percent. This conclusion, combined with the fact that squamous cell carcinoma is dependent on the cumulative dose, mistakenly led others to believe people get about 80 percent of their lifetime UV dose by age 18. However, analysis of actual exposure data shows that people get less than 25 percent of their lifetime dose by age 18.” A scientific article titled “Proportion Of Lifetime UV Dose Received By Children, Teenagers And Adults Based On Time- Stamped Personal Dosimetery” by Thieden, et al, published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology [123, 1147-1150 (2004)], concluded that “Only 25 percent of the lifetime UV dose was received before age 20 and the annual UV dose was thus independent of age.” On Aug. 28, 2002 we sent a letter to Health Canada informing them of the Godar, et al, article and requesting that the statement “80 percent of lifetime UVR exposure happens by age 18” be removed from all Health Canada documents. The following response was received: “Please be aware that all mentions to the 80 percent value will be removed from our Federal Government documents. This statement was based on a misinterpretation of data.” —[P. Reinhardt / Health Canada] Why Do Legislators Continue To Rely On Falsehoods To Justify Banning Teens From Tanning? Probably because state and local legislators seem to have lost sight of the fact that they have a solemn responsibility to check the veracity of premises like “the skin of young people is more sensitive to UVR” and misinterpretations like “80 percent of lifetime UVR exposure happens by age 18” before relying on them to make restrictive regulations. Thus, the failure by legislators to verify false premises and claims like this enable the anti-tanning segment of the dermatology community to continue disseminating false, deceptive, biased and misleading information. This is detrimental to the health and well-being of the American public, especially non-emancipated individuals under age 18 who have no political voice. We must hope that state and local politicians will have the courage to make decisions based on the facts and that they will reject false, deceptive, biased and misleading premises like “the skin of young people is more sensitive to UVR” and ignore false, deceptive, biased and misleading misinterpretations like “80 percent of lifetime UVR exposure happens by age 18” that are not true. We also hope that they will follow the lead of the FDA and not allow themselves to be coerced by the dermatology community into banning any aspect of indoor tanning. Summary The bottom line is that false, deceptive, biased and misleading premises like “the skin of young people is more sensitive to UVR” and false, deceptive, biased and misleading claims like “80 percent of lifetime UVR exposure happens by age 18” that are used by the anti-tanning segment of the dermatology community to encourage legislators to ban teenagers from tanning are not now, and never have been, true and, therefore, there is no scientific justification for banning teenagers from tanning. If your state/local legislators are considering adopting legislation that would result in banning teenagers from tanning, please send them a copy of this article. Patricia E. Reykdal owns and operates four tanning salons in Tucson, Ariz. Her husband, Donald L. Smith, is director of research of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute. Together, they have written more than 200 articles promoting sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to ultraviolet radiation. You can e-mail them your comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com. |
05-26-2007, 02:25 PM | #2 (permalink) |
Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,643
Rep Power: 26 | Re: Misinterpretation Of Data And Teens We always get 3 or 4 responses to our articles from dermatologists but this article set a new record. At last count we had 10 responses and - as you would expect - all of them were negative. When I e-mailed them asking for data showing that our facts were incorrect, not a single one of them responded. Evidently they prefer myths and not facts. |
05-26-2007, 03:32 PM | #5 (permalink) |
I love Derf!! Join Date: Feb 21 2005 Location: NEw York Age: 47
Posts: 1,035
Rep Power: 27 | Re: Misinterpretation Of Data And Teens i just forwarded this to the legislators who basically banned teen tanning on these facts... wish i had this informations last summer
__________________ OFFICIALLY MRS. V !! HOLLA! |
Bookmarks |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
| |