Don Smith

FYI To Ask Don's Army:

Things that make you wonder.....

We are continually told by the dermatology community that even one sunburn in childhood raises your RR (relative risk) of developing non-melanoma skin cancer, especially squamous cell carcinoma.

If this is true, then why doesn't everyone develop non-melanoma skin cancer?

For instance, in a recent Canadian study, 50% of the adults and 68% of the those from 15 - 24 surveyed stated that they had sunburned during the one year survey period.

So it is obvious that if 68% of the young people and 50% of the adults sunburn each year, it is likely that EVERYONE WILL SUNBURN AT LEAST ONCE OR TWICE DURING THEIR LIFETIME.

Why, then, doesn't everyone develop non-melanoma skin cancer?

Because skin cancer (like most cancers) is caused (induced) by multiple factors, i.e., genetics, diet, environmental pollutants, smoking, etc., and of these, GENETICS is the most important.

Thus, the "bottom line" is that the attempt by the dermatology community to blame UVR for being the sole cause of non-melanoma skin cancer is no more correct than their false, deceptive, misleading and scientifically unsubstantiated "claim" that 80% of a persons lifetime sun exposure came before the age of 18 (as was shown by the recent statement by Health Canada)!

And there is ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to "link" the development of melanoma to UVR exposure and yet this "claim" is made notwithstanding the fact that, it too, is false, deceptive, misleading and scientifically unsubstantiated.

Our enemies (as I hope you all understand by now) aren't going to let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their campaign to demonize our industry!

Don "Who Says 'NO MORE LIES' About Tanning" Smith

solarmeter

Months ago I suggested to the hairless mouse test guru that he re-run identical tests with heat lamps instead of FS-UVB lamps. Here is the response (name omitted on purpose):

Steve:
Interesting thoughts about melanoma,etc.

Unfortunately, there exists no satisfactory laboratory model of human cutaneous malignant melanoma. Any contemporary lab tests are attempting to exploit selected features of the available models (i.e., newborn mice, transgenics that are ultrasensitive to all carcinogens, rat-sized marsupials, etc., etc.) all of which tempt their proponents to make extravagent promises and arrive at forgone conclusions. All in all, not very productive yet.

As to IR effects, they may have received less attention than they deserve, but it would take some really clever experimental designs to provide definitive conclusions. At the very least, both cutaneous and core temperatures would need to be monitored, and the housing and exposure conditions would need to be controlled exhaustively. Appropriate radiation sources are certainly available, in particular a whole family of filters for an Atlas xenon arc solar simulator. Fluorescent sources (tanning lamps, sun lamps, etc.) and endless numbers of tungtson and HID lamps have been used because they are cheap and easy, but for reasons too numerous to mention, they are totally inappropriate for this application. Doing any of these studies correctly would be expensive, and at the moment no one is stepping forward with support.

Finally, there is some ancient evidence that elevated room temperature can slightly enhance photocarcinogenesis (not melanoma) in haired mice, but again it is only suggestive evidence at most.

Regards,
***