Don Smith

FYI:

I posted the information below "over there" in response to one of Bruce's posts whereby he recommended that the indoor tanning industry follow a "public relations" approach rather than the "political" approach being followed by ITA.

Bruce:

You are right and you are wrong (IMHO).

You are "right" when you say (about ITA) that "They are wrong, they view this as a political stuggle, it is NOT..." The "political" approach being followed by ITA is for the "ego gratification" of a few individuals and nothing more.

But you are wrong when you say that "...it is a PUBLIC REALATIONS struggle" because, while there is a PR component to this "struggle" because it is, at the core, a "scientific" problem.

For instance, in papers around the country this week (it was in ours today) the media will be reporting the erroneous conclusions contained in the "Geller" study (of Boston University) that was funded by NIH, CDC and others. This study "purports" to show that "kids ignore the risk of cancer for a tan" and it is based upon NONSENSE data!

Now, my friend, IF you think that a "flack merchant" (a PR executive) can refute the Geller study you are crazy!

Later this morning I will post some SCIENTIFIC FACTS that will help tanning salon owners "refute" this study and THAT is the "short-term" solution to the ACUTE problem we face with the Geller study. The solution to the "long-term" CHRONIC problem is to CONTINUALLY "feed" the media counter-balancing information showing that UNDEREXPOSURE to UVR causes many more premature (and preventable) deaths each year (and showing that OUR information is, therefore, more "newsworthy" because it has a higher "bad news" quotient) than are caused by OVEREXPOSURE to UVR, i.e., non-melanoma skin cancer.

Sadly, everyone is looking for a "magic button" to push to "make things better" (the "PR" and "political" approaches) and that just plain won't cut the mustard. The scientific arguments being used against us, especially when the "science" being used is "shoddy" at best like the Geller study, can ONLY be refuted by scientific arguments based upon "better" (and, therefore, more credible) science. Sorry, but that is just the way it is!

Do I think that the words above will convince you and ITA to become more "science" oriented? No! Why not? Because the "scientific path" involves a LOT of hard, boring research and preparation. And, since the "science of tanning" turns most people in the indoor tanning industry off, that sad fact-of-life cuts directly to the REAL "heart" of our problem.

Thus, IMHO, the "easier" and "more comfortable" and "more easily understood" PR and political approaches will be blindly followed like lemmings follow their leader into the sea.

More later.

Don

PS: I'll post some "factual" information later today that will help you all "refute" the Geller study that you will undoubtedly be hearing more about this week (it was in our paper today!).
[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-06-07 05:59 ]

Doug McNabb

It was on CNN Headline News this morning.

Doug

Don Smith

RE: The "Geller" Study:

I finally got a copy of the "Geller" study today and it is not just an article "contrived" to be anti-tanning, it is a CONTRIVED anti-tanning article!

It is misleading, inaccurate and SO lacking in credibility it is difficult to understand why the media accepted it and printed the results. In summary, it is NONSENSE!

Title: "Use of Sunscreen, Sunburning Rates, and Tanning Bed Use Among More Than 10,000 US Children and Adolescents."

Authors: Geller, Colditz, Oliveria, Emmons, Jorgensen, Aweh, Frazier.

Publication: Pediatrics, Vol 109, No. 6, June, 2002.

Conclusions: "Our findings suggest that many children are at subsequent risk of skin cancer because of suboptimal sunscreen use, high rates of sunburning, and tanning bed use. Recommendation in the United States for improved sun protection and avoidance of tanning beds and sunburning, which began in the early 1990's, have been primarily unheeded. Nationally coordinated campaigns with strong policy components must be developed and sustained to prevent skin cancer in a new generation of children and adolescents."

Comments:

1. The statement "Nationally coordinated campaigns with strong policy components must be developed and sustained to prevent skin cancer in a new generation of children and adolescents" was refuted by the author's statement that "...skin cancers are rare in individuals under the age of 20...". Thus, a "nationally coordinated campaign" is not required because there is no need to "prevent skin cancer" that doesn't occur in childhood.

2. This article was TOTALLY dependent upon the premise that "sunburning" was occuring. The author's stated that "Eighty-three percent of respondents had at least 1 sunburn during the previous summer and 36% had 3 or more sunburns" as "proof" of the problem. However, the question that was asked had a "fatal flaw" that negates the credibility and validity of this study. The authors asked "How many times did you get a sunburn this past summer (that is, how many times did exposed parts of your skin stay red for several hours after you had been out in the sun)? No sunburn, 1 to 2 times, 3 or more times?

The "questionnaire fatal flaw" is that a sunburn isn't a sunburn until the "redness" (UVR-induced erythema) has "persisted for 24 hours. Thus, the question should have been "...did exposed parts of your skin stay red for 24 hours after you had been out in the sun".

A child being surveyed might have considered that "redness" from the "heat flush" one would expect to result from playing outside in the sunlight to be a "UVR-induced sunburn" when it wasn't.

Thus, this "fatal questionnaire flaw" ALONE negates the conclusions reached by the authors!

2. The second "major flaw" in this study involved the "sunscreen" question. The authors asked "When you were outside on a sunny day this past summer for > 15 minutes, how often did you use sunscreen or sunblock with a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of 15 or more? Asking this question without verifying that the proper "dose" of sunscreen was used makes this data worthless. IF the child "always" applied a sunscreen but only applied 1/2 the correct amount, they would have a little less than 1/2 the protection time. And, if only 1/4 the correct "dose" was used (as studies have shown is typical), the protection is less than 25% of total. Thus, a SPF 15 would be a SPF 7 (if 1/2 the "dose" was used); a SPF 3 (if 1/4 the "dose" was used).

The failure to use the proper "dose" would be expected to "impact" the sunburning "results" mentioned above.

3. There was no "valid" reason to ask about sunbed use "During the past year, how many times did you use a tanning booth or tanning salon?" but in a CONTRIVED anti-tanning study, it should be expected. The authors reported that "Nearly 10% of respondents used a tanning bed during the previous year and then later that 9.5% had "used a tanning booth in the past year." IF the authors don't know the difference between a sunbed and a booth, how can their results be trusted?

But the "major flaw" regarding sunbed/booth use was the inexplicable failure of the authors to ascertain whether or not those who used a tanning bed/booth had fewer sunburns (as you would expect) than those who did not use a sunbed/booth!

So, the "bottom line" is the authors "conclusion" that "Recent recommendations in the United States for improved sun protection and avoidance of tanning beds and sunburning have apparently yielded few positive results" and the reason for the fact that the anti-tanning message is easy for everyone except the authors of this CONTRIVED study to understand.

ANYONE (especially bright children - the respondents where the children of health care professionals) with an ounce of common sense knows that the strident "anti-tanning" message DOES NOT make sense!

Our species has been dependent upon sunlight to sustain life for as long as we have been on earth and "common sense" tells us that it the "sunlight avoidance" message violates the "does this make sense?" test!

If someone asks you about the "Geller" study, tell them that it is nothing more than CONTRIVED anti-tanning NONSENSE and that the authors should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such a "shoddy" paper!

Don "Keeping YOU Informed" Smith

PS: Call me (1-520-975-0180) if you have questions.
[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-06-05 23:10 ]

Soakinuptherays

Any NAC that does not use the scientific knowledge of Don Smith is going to fail.

Don your insight on these reports are what allows the indoor tanning industry a ray of light stop anti-tanning articles.

Mori

DON, YOU'RE RIGHT and YOU'RE WRONG. yOU'RE RIGHT IN THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT (sorry, I had my caps lock on) factor on our side is the growing body of new and rehashed, SCIENTIFIC information conclusively proving the beneficials effects of UV exposure.

But Don, the sunscare coalition has got the right idea that some of us seem to be missing. INFORMATION IS JUST WORDS UNTIL SOMEONE READS THEM. They have known for the longest time that getting the public to read their half-truth-at-best articles will opinionate them, we must fight on the fronts created by our enemy and the only way to do so is to make our findings known to the public affected (or infected, if you will)by the sunscare coalition.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg? We can carry on this argument ad infinitum or we can get our messages to the public as economically and as widely as possible... PUBLIC RELATIONS however you look at it.

Don Smith

Mori:

Does a tree falling in the forest when no one is around make a sound?

[Note: That question doesn't have much relativity to our problem but, what the ****, I have always liked it and this was a good chance to "trot it out" again!]

You are, as usual, absolutely right!

Unless and until we can get the "Good News!" out to the media in a format that they will use, we are just spinning our wheels (or, just "******* in the wind" if you prefer a more "earth" analogy).

That's why I am now sending this "Good News!" information out to "selected" media outlets and why I have talked to Jenny Bolton at Looking Fit this week about working together to find a way to better disseminate this information.

And, Mori, (a.k.a., the Northwoods Philosopher) what is your answer to my question regarding the tree falling?

Don

[Note: Please keep in mind that Joe Levy at Smart Tan has been sending "non-scientific press releases" out for several years and the "impact" has been minimal at best. Thus I have concluded that we must try something new, i.e., press releases with a high "scientific" content. Will this approach work? There's only one way to find out!]

solarmeter

Don,

Are you going to 'contribute' some of those to the tiny 'Lonn NAC' too? Or do your own dissemination exclusively? Do you consider your releases to be an NAC of sorts or not?

Do you want or need any formal or informal $$ donations for the effort? Is there a 'name' for it? Is it TSO or UVR-I based?

I keep asking just in case you decide to answer someday..

Steve

CancunRayz

Don,
I'd like a copy of your "Scientific" Press Release and I will do my part to email, US Mail it to all of the media outlets in Ohio.

Mori

Ah Grasshopper Don, The tree falls to the ground and sound waves eminate outwards where they affect the auditory mechanisms of beings and creatures around it. The auditory mechanisms are affected in a manner of absorbing the shocks of the wave lengths, transmitting the shocks and translating them, if you will, as an understandable "sound". Without the auditory mechanism in place the waves are simply waves untranslated into sound. Hence, no translating receptor, no auditory "image".

SO, if a tree does fall in a forest devoid of living creatures, no sound is made... the POTENTIAL of sound is there but unfulfilled.

Next, the existance of G-D as man....

SLI-HOT

Mori,

WOW!

Bartman