Facultative Pigmentation Is Also Immunoprotective! - tanTALK

Don Smith · 07-17-2002, 04:41 PM

FYI To Ask Don's Army:

We all know that facultative pigmentation (better known as a "tan") is both photoprotective and thermoprotective.

Now we find that it is also immunoprotective!

A paper titled "Influence of adaptation to UVB on UVB-Induced Immunosuppression" by Sleijffers, et all, that was presented Monday at the American society of Photobiology (ASP) meeting stated that "Preliminary results showed that adaptation to UVB could prevent the UVB-induced immunosuppression of both cellular and humoral immune responses."

This is VERY good news!

A sunscreen provides photoprotection (as long as it is applied in the correct "dose" and reapplied often) and thermoprotection (once again, as long as it is applied in the correct "dose" and reapplied often) but the "problem" has been is that a sunscreen has a limited ability to provide immunoprotection (even when applied properly and reapplied when required).

Remember, the "gold standard" for evaluating the "effectiveness" of a sunscreen is to measure how well it compares to the "protection" (photo, thermo and now immuno) provided by a tan! In other words, sunscreen products are "graded" by how well they "compare" to a tan!

The evidence is RAPIDLY mounting to substantiate my premise that the benefits (photoprotection, thermoprotection, and now immunoprotection) of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved. It will be increasingly difficult for ANYONE to deny the benefits any longer!

Don "Keeping YOU Infomed About All Of The Exciting NEW Information" Smith

Mori · 07-17-2002, 04:50 PM

Don, "IT" is many things. "IT" encompasses a broad spectral range. "IT" has it's good side and its bad. "IT" as a single entity is also immunosuppressive. Is the immunosuppressiveness overcome or at least negated by "IT" in "ITS" entirety which also is imunoprotective??? Is there a yin and yang in "IT" that equals zero or, better for us, plus????

Just trying to keep the field honest.

Don Smith · 07-17-2002, 06:40 PM

Mori:

Unfortunately, the "arbitrary" breakdown of the UVR spectra that we use, i.e., UVB = 280 - 320 nm; UVA2 = 320 - 340 nm; and UVA1 = 340 - 400 nm) doesn't "match" the human biological response.

The UVB and UVA2 (280 - 340 nm) wavelengths are immunosuppressive and the UVA1 (340 - 400 nm) are immunostimulatory.

Therefore, when you read articles saying that UVA (320 - 400 nm) is "slightly" immunosuppressive, what has happened is that the UVA2 wavelengths (which, remember, are immunosuppressive) have "contaminated" the immunostimulatory UVA1 wavelengths. That is why I "floated" a proposal last year to call 280 - 320 nm the UVB1 region; 320 - 340 nm the UVB2 region; and 340 - 400 the UVA region because then we would match the "arbitrary" ranges to the biological ranges. We would then, correctly, call the UVB (UVB1 & UVB2) region "immunosuppressive" and the UVA region "immunostimulatory" and it would be MUCH less confusing (and much more accurate).

What the Sleijffers paper said that was so important for the indoor tanning industry, Mori, was that the "adaptatation" to UVR "protected" against immunosuppression. That means people who develop and maintain facultative pigmentation (a "tan") will have less immunosuppression from the 280 - 340 nm wavelengths that does those who do not have a tan and, I think you will agree, this is VERY important!

Think of it this way. A person without a tan would, when exposed to full spectrum UVR, end up slightly immuno-positive (otherwise our species would have died out long ago!) while a person WITH a tan would be MORE immuno-positive; thus the latter person (with a tan) would be better able to "fight off" environmental stressors (because of a "stronger" immune system) than would the former (without a tan) who would have a "weaker" immune system.

One final thing. We should, in order to be more accurate, speak of the "immunostimulatory" reaction as "immune modulation" and positive immune modulation is good and negative immune modulation is not so good.

Mother Nature IS NOT stupid! Facultative pigmentation (a "tan") does more than make you and I more handsome (how could we be MORE handsome?); it also provides photoprotection, thermoprotection and immunoprotection!

Don "Mother Nature's Friend" Smith

PS: Because facultative pigmentation (a "tan") is now shown to be photoprotective, thermoprotective AND immunoprotective, it is no longer acceptable to refer to a "cosmetic tan" unless, of course, you are talking about a "fake spray" artificial tan!

BooBop · 07-17-2002, 06:43 PM

Facultative Pigmentation Is Also Immunoprotective

Now say that 10 times real fast!

Okay gotta go back and read the thread now.

Now that I read it, this is good news Don. I can now tell people that tanning in UV light is photothermoinmuno protective for them! hehehe
It looks like the anti people are going to have to eat some words sooner than they think.

_________________
Barkin with the Big Dog since April 2002
Mitzi
[ This Message was edited by: Mitzi on 2002-07-17 18:48 ]

Don Smith · 07-17-2002, 06:45 PM

One more thing:

I know that some of these discussions (like the one above) are highly technical but this information is what will transform our industry. Thus, we all MUST be able to "communicate" this information to the media and the American public.

So get busy, slackers, there will be a test later! LOL

Don "The Stern Task Master" Smith

Don Smith · 07-17-2002, 06:48 PM

Mitzi:

By Jove, you've GOT it!

Don "Who Awards You A Gold Star!" Smith

solarmeter · 07-17-2002, 08:07 PM

Don,

I don't know anything about immuno suppress or protect. Just what exactly am I supposed to NOT be immune to.. after all these years of maybe too much UVR?

Whatever it is, it hasn't attacked me yet - knock on wood.

Steve

Don Smith · 07-17-2002, 08:32 PM

Steve:

You are reaping the benefits of living a clean, sin free life! LOL

Don "Who Has Gone Astray A Time Or Two" Smith

solarmeter · 07-17-2002, 09:18 PM

Yeah right, Don ... (*^_^*)

Mori · 07-18-2002, 08:20 AM

Salon owners that are, what we refer to as "lurkers", ie those that read but won't for whatever, reason respond... I know that this and much else that Don Smith writes about seems over your head. Well, it's not and it certainly should not be. There is a very big difference between owning some tanning equipment (no matter how many or what type) that you let people use in exchange for money and running a proffesional tanning salon. The big difference is in he education you have and are able to impart to your customers. It is essential for all of you out there to educate yourselves to the point where what Don Smith talks about becomes very basic information to you.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pigmentation marks	tina2	Health & Fitness	2	07-18-2005 06:28 PM
Help me... Skin Pigmentation problem	sweetpea	General Tanning Industry Discussions	8	01-04-2004 10:15 PM
Stay With Me...#6: Lesson 2	Don Smith	Tanning Salon Management	7	09-11-2002 08:11 AM
Stay With Me...#5: Lesson 1	Don Smith	Tanning Salon Management	3	09-05-2002 11:27 AM

07-17-2002, 04:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,643 Rep Power: 26	FYI To Ask Don's Army: We all know that facultative pigmentation (better known as a "tan") is both photoprotective and thermoprotective. Now we find that it is also immunoprotective! A paper titled "Influence of adaptation to UVB on UVB-Induced Immunosuppression" by Sleijffers, et all, that was presented Monday at the American society of Photobiology (ASP) meeting stated that "Preliminary results showed that adaptation to UVB could prevent the UVB-induced immunosuppression of both cellular and humoral immune responses." This is VERY good news! A sunscreen provides photoprotection (as long as it is applied in the correct "dose" and reapplied often) and thermoprotection (once again, as long as it is applied in the correct "dose" and reapplied often) but the "problem" has been is that a sunscreen has a limited ability to provide immunoprotection (even when applied properly and reapplied when required). Remember, the "gold standard" for evaluating the "effectiveness" of a sunscreen is to measure how well it compares to the "protection" (photo, thermo and now immuno) provided by a tan! In other words, sunscreen products are "graded" by how well they "compare" to a tan! The evidence is RAPIDLY mounting to substantiate my premise that the benefits (photoprotection, thermoprotection, and now immunoprotection) of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved. It will be increasingly difficult for ANYONE to deny the benefits any longer! Don "Keeping YOU Infomed About All Of The Exciting NEW Information" Smith

07-17-2002, 04:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mori Waiting Confirmation Join Date: Apr 23 2002 Posts: 242 Rep Power: 0	Don, "IT" is many things. "IT" encompasses a broad spectral range. "IT" has it's good side and its bad. "IT" as a single entity is also immunosuppressive. Is the immunosuppressiveness overcome or at least negated by "IT" in "ITS" entirety which also is imunoprotective??? Is there a yin and yang in "IT" that equals zero or, better for us, plus???? Just trying to keep the field honest.

07-17-2002, 06:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,643 Rep Power: 26	Mori: Unfortunately, the "arbitrary" breakdown of the UVR spectra that we use, i.e., UVB = 280 - 320 nm; UVA2 = 320 - 340 nm; and UVA1 = 340 - 400 nm) doesn't "match" the human biological response. The UVB and UVA2 (280 - 340 nm) wavelengths are immunosuppressive and the UVA1 (340 - 400 nm) are immunostimulatory. Therefore, when you read articles saying that UVA (320 - 400 nm) is "slightly" immunosuppressive, what has happened is that the UVA2 wavelengths (which, remember, are immunosuppressive) have "contaminated" the immunostimulatory UVA1 wavelengths. That is why I "floated" a proposal last year to call 280 - 320 nm the UVB1 region; 320 - 340 nm the UVB2 region; and 340 - 400 the UVA region because then we would match the "arbitrary" ranges to the biological ranges. We would then, correctly, call the UVB (UVB1 & UVB2) region "immunosuppressive" and the UVA region "immunostimulatory" and it would be MUCH less confusing (and much more accurate). What the Sleijffers paper said that was so important for the indoor tanning industry, Mori, was that the "adaptatation" to UVR "protected" against immunosuppression. That means people who develop and maintain facultative pigmentation (a "tan") will have less immunosuppression from the 280 - 340 nm wavelengths that does those who do not have a tan and, I think you will agree, this is VERY important! Think of it this way. A person without a tan would, when exposed to full spectrum UVR, end up slightly immuno-positive (otherwise our species would have died out long ago!) while a person WITH a tan would be MORE immuno-positive; thus the latter person (with a tan) would be better able to "fight off" environmental stressors (because of a "stronger" immune system) than would the former (without a tan) who would have a "weaker" immune system. One final thing. We should, in order to be more accurate, speak of the "immunostimulatory" reaction as "immune modulation" and positive immune modulation is good and negative immune modulation is not so good. Mother Nature IS NOT stupid! Facultative pigmentation (a "tan") does more than make you and I more handsome (how could we be MORE handsome?); it also provides photoprotection, thermoprotection and immunoprotection! Don "Mother Nature's Friend" Smith PS: Because facultative pigmentation (a "tan") is now shown to be photoprotective, thermoprotective AND immunoprotective, it is no longer acceptable to refer to a "cosmetic tan" unless, of course, you are talking about a "fake spray" artificial tan!

07-17-2002, 06:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
BooBop I love Derf!! Join Date: Apr 5 2001 Age: 66 Posts: 7,766 Rep Power: 28	Facultative Pigmentation Is Also Immunoprotective Now say that 10 times real fast! Okay gotta go back and read the thread now. Now that I read it, this is good news Don. I can now tell people that tanning in UV light is photothermoinmuno protective for them! hehehe It looks like the anti people are going to have to eat some words sooner than they think. _________________ Barkin with the Big Dog since April 2002 Mitzi [ This Message was edited by: Mitzi on 2002-07-17 18:48 ]

07-17-2002, 06:45 PM	#5 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,643 Rep Power: 26	One more thing: I know that some of these discussions (like the one above) are highly technical but this information is what will transform our industry. Thus, we all MUST be able to "communicate" this information to the media and the American public. So get busy, slackers, there will be a test later! LOL Don "The Stern Task Master" Smith

07-17-2002, 06:48 PM	#6 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,643 Rep Power: 26	Mitzi: By Jove, you've GOT it! Don "Who Awards You A Gold Star!" Smith

07-17-2002, 08:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
solarmeter Join Date: Nov 13 2001 Location: MI Posts: 861 Rep Power: 23	Don, I don't know anything about immuno suppress or protect. Just what exactly am I supposed to NOT be immune to.. after all these years of maybe too much UVR? Whatever it is, it hasn't attacked me yet - knock on wood. Steve

07-17-2002, 08:32 PM	#8 (permalink)
Don Smith Join Date: Feb 25 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 1,643 Rep Power: 26	Steve: You are reaping the benefits of living a clean, sin free life! LOL Don "Who Has Gone Astray A Time Or Two" Smith

07-17-2002, 09:18 PM	#9 (permalink)
solarmeter Join Date: Nov 13 2001 Location: MI Posts: 861 Rep Power: 23	Yeah right, Don ... (^_^)

07-18-2002, 08:20 AM	#10 (permalink)
Mori Waiting Confirmation Join Date: Apr 23 2002 Posts: 242 Rep Power: 0	Salon owners that are, what we refer to as "lurkers", ie those that read but won't for whatever, reason respond... I know that this and much else that Don Smith writes about seems over your head. Well, it's not and it certainly should not be. There is a very big difference between owning some tanning equipment (no matter how many or what type) that you let people use in exchange for money and running a proffesional tanning salon. The big difference is in he education you have and are able to impart to your customers. It is essential for all of you out there to educate yourselves to the point where what Don Smith talks about becomes very basic information to you.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)