Don Smith

[Note: In order to "counter" the plethora of "bad news" being disseminated to the media by the anti-tanning segment of the dermatology community and their "comrade's-in-arms" the sunscreen industry, this "section" will feature "GOOD NEWS!" about tanning and/or the tanning process.]

1. GOOD NEWS! Article # 1:

Title: "Quantitation and Visualization of Ultravioldet-Induced DNA Damage Using Specific Antibodies: Application to Pigment Cell Biology".

Authors: Kobayashi, Katsumi, Imoto, Nakawawa, Miyagawa, Furumura, and Mori.

Publication: Pigment Cell Research [14, 2001]

Conclusion: "These results indicate that supranuclear melanin caps reduce UV-induced DNA photoproducts in a melanin concentration-dependent manner."

Plain English Version: The development of facultative pigmentation (a.k.a., a "tan") INCREASED the protection of the cells by a factor of four times. [Note: This "increase" in protection is similar to taking a client from 0.75 MED to 4.0 MED - a 5.33 times increase - over a series of tanning sessions.]

Something to Note: You will "note" that the title referred to "Ultraviolet-Induced DNA Damage" but the "conclusion" CORRECTLY called this normal, natural "response" of the body to UVR as the "development of UV-induced DNA photoproducts" which is the correct terminology. Only the anti-tanning "loonies" CHOOSE to refer to the normal, natural development of photoproducts as "damage" even though they know, or ought to know, that this constitutes a "misuse" of the word.

So, folks, you can see that the scientific community (at least in Japan) are coming to "realize" what YOU already know; that a "tan" INCREASES your tolerance to UVR (t-UVR) in DIRECT PROPORTION to the level of the tan!

GOOD NEWS!

Don "Keeping YOU Informed" Smith

[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-06-06 08:57 ][ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-06-06 09:00 ]

Mori

RIGHT ON DON !!!! and Don...WRITE ON!!!

solarmeter

I see Mori is one of the authors! In Nihongo that's pronounced: Mow-ree' ‚ðŠ*‚è‚È‚³‚¢

Don Smith

[Note: In order to "counter" the plethora of "bad news" being disseminated to the media by the anti-tanning segment of the dermatology community and their "comrade's-in-arms" the sunscreen industry, this "section" will feature "GOOD NEWS!" about tanning and/or the tanning process.]

1. GOOD NEWS! Article # 2:

Title: DNA Photodamage Stimulates Melanogenesis and Other Photoprotective Responses."

Authors: Barbara A. Gilchrest, MD, and Mark S. Eller, MD.

Publication: Journal of Investigative Dermatology (Symposium Proceedings) September, 1999

Conclusion: "Life on earth evolved in the presence of UVR irradiation from terrestrial sunlight and essentially all organisms developed photoprotective mechanisms to limit the resulting damage. In the case of human skin, two photoprotective mechanisms have been recognized. (1) Melanin pigmentation, both constitutive (baseline) and facultative (inducible), is the major recognized form of protection against UV-induced damage. Photoprotection is attribuitable to the fact that the melanin polyment can directly absorb UV photons, dissipating the other wise injurious energy as heat, and fan further absorb free radical species generated by interaction of UV photons with cellular lipids and other molecules that otherwise cause oxidative damage. (2) Scattering and reflection of UV photons by proteins in the stratum corneum, which is known to thicken followng UV radiation, particularly in poorly melanized skin.

"Mammalian skin responds to UV irradiation by increased production of the pigment melanin in melanocytes with subsequent distribution to surrounding keratinocyes in a manner shown to be photoprotective. Also, recent data indicates that mammalian cells, like bacterial cells, have a UV-inducible DNA repair capacity that further protcts the tissue from subsequent UV exposure. The combined effect of UV-induced melanogenesis and enhanced DNA repair capacity as well as possibly other as yet poorly elucidated inducible responses, is the render the skin far more resistant to subsequent UV injury. Such responses can reasonably be presumed important in protecting skin from acute and chronic UV damage including the development of skin cancer.

"In addition, UVR-induced tanning is known to be photoprotective with a sun protection factor (SPF) of approximately three to five, depending on the individuals genetically determined ability to tan."

[Note: Although the words above were not written by me, they could have been because they substantiate my belief that the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved.}

Plain English Version:

In summary, the Gilchrest and Eller article says:

1. Both our natural skin color (constitutive pigmentation) and an acquired "tan" (facultative pigmentation) provide protection against UV-induced damage to the skin.

2. UV photons (photons = packets of energy) are directly absorbed by melanin polymers which helps the body get rid of the otherwise injurious "heat" energy (which means that a tan is also "thermoprotective" in addition to "photoprotective") and the melanin polymers can also absorb potentially damaging free radicals.

3. The thickening of the stratum corneum (the "dead cell" layer) during the tanning process also provides photoprotection and thermoprotection, especially in individuals with lower skin types/subtypes.

4. Tanned skin becomes far more resistant (by a factor of three to five times) to subsequent UVR injury.

5. The darkening of the skin during the tanning process and the enhanced DNA repair capacity that results (and possibly other unknown factors) can be presumed important in protecting the skin from both acute (suinburn) and chronic (including the development of skin cancer!) UV damage.

The "bottom line" is that it matters not whether an individual is born with darker natural skin color or acquires and maintains a year-round "tan", the photoprotective and thermoprotective benefits are not just limited to the prevention of UVR-induced eryithema (sunburn), but SPECIFICALLY include preventing the development of skin cancer!

This article is GOOD NEWS!

Don

solarmeter

Keep this up and who needs a 'NAC'?

Suppliment it with 2001-2 Grant, Mims etc papers and 'force' newspapers/TV to follow up EVERY sunscare contrived article with them. 'Counterpoint' sidebar if nothing else. Even Car & Driver does that when they praise or bash a car.

Ah - but how to force them? Your idea of bad news (UV avoidance problems) may be the key.

Steve