Don Smith

FYI:

The information posted below was in response to a question asked by Mike over at TanningProfessionals. He was upset about a "study" from France that "showed" a higher level of melanoma in HP sunbeds.


Mike:

First of all, there are NO credible studies "linking" the development of skin cancer to ANY tanning modality, LP or HP. All of the studies are "flawed" in several ways.

1. The most common "flaw" is that the researchers "used" FS series sunlamps. Why is this a problem? Because the "unfiltered" FS sunlamps emit 3% UVC and 60% UVB! The "Kodacel filtered" eliminate the UVC and "cut down" the UVB percentage to approximately 46%! Quick now. How many of you reading this post are using 46% UVB sunlamps in your salon?

2. The second most common "flaw" is that mice don't react to UVR like humans do. Thus, the studies "overexaggerate" the adverse affects of UVR and, since the mice can't develop facultative pigmentation (a "tan"), none of the beneficial effects can be studied.

Think about what happens when the sun starts comming up in the morning. First of all, we are "bathed" in the longer wavelengths, i.e., UVA, visible and infrared. Then, when the "angle" of the sun is correct, the UVB wavelengths start "penetrating" the atmosphere. [Note: You can prove this to yourself by going out early with a A & B and B meter and "point them" at the rising sun. You will start "reading" the A & B early on but will not be able to "detect" any UVB; then, you will "suddenly" start to "read" UVB!

In some fascinating and VERY important work done in Europe, the researchers studied "damage" in cells using an irradiance source that emitted ONLY UVR wavelengths and conducted a "parallel" experiment whereby the cells were first treated with longer wavelengths of light (like when the sun comes up) and their findings were VERY SIGNIFICANT! They found that "pretreatment" or "co-treatment" with these longer wavelengths ELIMINATED 90% of the "damage" to the cells.

In another European study, it was found that "induced" melanoma's were TOTALLY ERRADICATED by certain "longer" wavelengths of light while other "longer" wavelengths of light "promoted" the growth of the melanoma.

But the best "model" is to look at plants. There, we see that the same longer wavelengths that "promote" the growth of melanoma are the ones that "trigger" the "heat shock proteins" that lead to the plant "wilting" that leads to death.

So what does this research mean? It means, IMHO, that:

1. The studies showing "damage" from UVR are all "fatally flawed" because (a) they used sunlamps with 46 - 60% UVB (and in some cases 3% UVC), and, (b) they DID NOT "pretreat" or "co-trteat" the study animals with the longer "beneficial" wavelengths.

2. There is growing "evidence" to support my premise. And my premise is that melanoma may be "caused" by certain "longer" wavelengths that are found (in high levels) in sunlight BUT that melanoma IS NOT caused by UVR!

So, the "bottom line" is that HP may (IMHO) turn out to be the most important tanning modality from a health benefits point of view. However, having said that, we must also make sure that the "harmful" longer wavelengths are eliminated by the judicious use of filtering. [Note: I am off to Europe next week to take part in some meeting to discuss this subject.]

One more thing. There is no question but that UVR is a major "co-factor" (skin cancer is caused by multiple factors working together) in the induction of SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) and that it is a minor "co-factor" in the induction of BCC (basal cell carcinoma). Keep in mind that the annual deaths in the USA that can be attributed to these two forms of skin cancer (SCC & BCC) are approximately 600 per year! (For comparison, there are about 500 - 600 deaths from lightening strikes each year!)

Sorry for the long explanation, Mike, but this is a VERY important subject for all of us. IF my premise (and the premise of many researchers) turns out to be correct and we learn that the longer wavelengths both "inhibit" and "promote" melanoma, HP systems (that eliminate the "bad" wavelengths and "allow" the beneficial wavelengths) will become VERY important to public health. [Note: It is difficult, if not impossible, to generate the longer (beneficial) wavelengths in a LP system.]

Hope this explanation helps.

Don

BooBop

And again, I must thank you Mr. Don!

I wish I could come and do some training and learning with you!

Mori

"So, the "bottom line" is that HP may (IMHO) turn out to be the most important tanning modality from a health benefits point of view."


Sorry Don but again I have to take you to task on this. Our strongest point of contention against the sunscare coalition comes from the growing body of evidence linking UVC to be of utmost benefit against many many forms of cancer and other illnesses. The UVB of TRUE HP is so minimal and the fact remains that it is within the UVB spectrum that the most vitamin C is caused to be produced. Hence, from a beneficial health point of view... LP with a low amount of UVB would better provide healthful beneficial effects... WITHOUT THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE LOWER LAYERS OF THE SKIN (BECAUSE OF OVEREXPOSURE).


And Don, what did you think about my answer to the tree falling in the forest question??

solarmeter

Don - visit Schott and help them invent the 'perfect' HP filter while you're in Europe. And a plant leaf test too.

Steve