The cases of skin cancer pale in comparison to things like smoking and a myriad of other “bad” things for you. Smoking kills hundreds of thousands per year. Skin cancer less than 10k and most if not all those cases were either from the older generation where moderation was not used OR simply failed to react to a skin issue. This takes years to develop into a harmful thing. I have first hand experience. I had some areas removed and they were not were any sunlight got to them.

This is very unclear science at best.

Many salons were interviewed as well as dermatologists to give their reactions.
As I watched and read the many comments, I was thrilled to see that the level of information at the fingertips of our salons has increased. I’ve spoken with many salons that had the chance to issue their own release, go on camera or get interviewed by their local paper. In a strange way, it showed me the determination by our industry on setting the record straight. I also had to grin when one report featured a dermatologist from North Carolina claiming that regarding the report,
” we’ve been advocating that tanning salons be regulated for quite some time”. North Carolina, as many of you know, has had indoor tanning regulations for quite some and arguably some of the most stringent regulations in the US! Don’t forget that the FDA has also regulated indoor tanning since 1980.

Now, here are the facts:

Overexposure to UV is harmful. This is not news! In 1992, UV energy from the sun was also classified as carcinogenic, yet our children still play baseball, play tennis, hike, swim, ski, in the great outdoors. This is the same sun that humans have basked in since creation. As salon professionals, we have consistently explained to the public that overexposure to UV is not good for you. For those that weigh the benefits and risks of UV, millions chose indoor tanning where UV is provided in moderation and responsibility by skin type and a timer. The sun has no such controls.

The report that put UV from tanning beds on the same level as such toxins as arsenic cigarettes and mustard gas has been tremendously over-hyped. Red wine, salted fish and natural sunlight are also on this list. We have seen this same type of frenzy before. Research suggests that indoor tanning produces vitamin D, that although the FDA forbids our industry from making medical claims, we know exists. Research also points out that endorphins-the same feel good hormone that many runners obtain-are also produced. Yet the media proclaims that endorphin production makes people “tanorexic” and links it to heroin addiction-yet runners are never paralleled as dope addicts!

About the research used: This proclamation by IARC on indoor tanning claims that it was the result of 20 different research reports. In the upcoming weeks, you will begin to see an investigation of these reports from many different indoor tanning industry sources that will illustrate the flaws found in much of this research. I’ll give you a couple upfront: the infamous “Westerdahl study”, an almost 25 year old report in which questionnaires were sent to various folks in Sweden (which has among the highest rates of skin cancer in the world) and asked them about their history of exposure to UV. Not done in a clinical setting, many of the respondents recollected using tanning devices prior to 1980-which at that time were almost 100% UVB-not modern indoor tanning systems. Another report used tanning beds and welding to draw a conclusion on the relationship of eye damage from radiation. Please note that most of the research that has been published on skin cancer has been done in areas of the world where skin cancer rates are extremely high such as Australia and Scandinavia.

The Indoor Tanning Association also has run a reply in the NY Times this week –visit http://www.theita.com for the response.