Don Smith

FYI To Ask Don's Platoon:

Old Ask Don's heart beat a little faster tonight when I read a "Letter To The Editor" in the October, 2002 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology that contained an absolutely amazing admission.

But before telling you what was in the article, a little review. FYI, all of the "hard data" linking melanoma to UVR has been animal based (mice, fish, etc.) and all showed that it was the UVA wavelengths that induced melanoma. It was, as you may recall, this so-called "hard data" that caused UVR and Sunbeds to be listed as "known carcinogens" by the National Institutes of Environmental Health.

The "Letter To The Editor" by Eve J. Lowerstein, MD, PhD, titled "Face facts: Measurement of ultraviolet A-mediated skin damage is still elusive" is so important because it provides incontrovertible evidence to show that the so-called "hard data" linking UVA to skin cancer and photoaging is, in reality, just another anti-UVR myth.

Dr. Lowenstein clearly stated that "A standard method for the evaluation of ultraviolet A (UVA)-induced skin damage is needed, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, NONE IS AVAILABLE."

That's right, folks, there is no "standard method for the evaluation" of the damage alleged to be caused by UVA. So, if there is no method for evaluating this damage, how then can the studies containing the "hard data" linking UVR to melanoma be considered to be valid?

The answer comes from Dr. Lowenstein when she said that "This end point (measurement of the development of persistend epidermal pigment darkening, a.k.a., a "tan"), however, has no proven relevance to the two most clinical outcomes of UVR exposure that are of most concern: photocarcinogenesis and skin aging."

That means (in plain English)that the so-called "hard data" linking UVA to skin cancer and photoaging is yet another anti-UVR myth, not a proven fact!

Dr. Lowenstein's letter goes on to document several other "end point" and "signalling" parameters that completely and effectively refute the notion that UVA can be linked to the induction of any form of skin cancer or photoaging of the skin.

She ends her letter with the statement that "In sum, evaluation of the surrogate end-point outcome measure offered in this study and many other similar studies is of unproven value in predicting the pathogenic effects of UVA and in determining sunscreen efficacy in skin protection from these effects."

This means that, once again, the indoor tanning industry has been demonized, discredited and financially damaged by false, deceptive, misleading and scientifically unsubstantiated statements by the dermatology community!

[Note: Anyone out there besides me fed up with what they are doing to us?]

I will prepare a submission to NIEH asking them to reconsider the listing of UVA and sunbeds as a "known carcinogen" based upon this new information as quickly as I can so that we can cause another myth to bite the dust.

Don "Keeping YOU Informed" Smith

solarmeter

Grrrreat! A so-called "known carcinogen" relagated back to UNKNOWN. If they ever determine mid IR to be a culprit.. they can list those warm and cozy heating blankets, etc.

Maybe you don't know - but I'll ask again: What wavelength bandwidths of IR can you "feel" as heat? Near, Mid, Far or all of them? If HP lamps have much "mid", and if some could be filtered, absorbed or reflected, could you sense the difference... or would near and far IR still feel "hot"?

Mori

And how do we PROVE that heat comes from the sun when in fact no one has every been to the surface of the sun... and written about it.

BooBop

Don says: Quote:This means that, once again, the indoor tanning industry has been demonized, discredited and financially damaged by false, deceptive, misleading and scientifically unsubstantiated statements by the dermatology community!

Do I smell Class Action Lawsuit?

BooBop

now that would get their attention, wouldn't it!

Don Smith

Steve:

I haven't been ignoring your question "over there"; rather, I have been doing some research to make sure I had my facts straight.

1. First of all, all of the IR "bands" (near = 700 nm - 1400 nm), mid = 1400 nm - 3000 nm and far 3000 nm - 1,000,000 nm) all are capable of producing "heat"
and that is the primary "macro" effect on the body.

2. When we begin to look at the biological effects, we see that there are differences between the bands. For instance, the visible and near-IR wavelengths are associated with retinal burns; the middle-IR are linked to lens damage leading to cararacts; and the low portion of the far-IR range (3000 nm - 10,000 nm) can cause corneal burns. No adverse effects have been noted from 10,000 nm - 1,000,000 nm. Likewise, the near-IR wavelengths are thought to have beneficial properites regarding the induction of melanoma (and perhaps non-melanoma skin cancer) while the wavelengths above 3000 nm (probably 3000 - 10,000 nm) are thought to induce melanoma (and perhaps non-melanoma skin cancer).

3. When we begin to look at the "automatic" biological "signalling" effects, we see that the near-IR seem to be involved in beneficial "protective" signalling while the longer wavelengths (+ 3,000 nm) trigger HS (heat shock) proteins that are implicated in cellular apoptosis.

In summary, we know a lot about the macro effects of light, a little bit about the biological effects of light and are only starting to understand the signalling effects of light.

Don

solarmeter

Thanks Don.

Still wish there was an easy way to meter clumps of IR in mW/cm^2 (not degrees F or C). There probably is.. but not using a "photodiode" as a sensor.