World Health Organization’s Recommendation Based On Errors
by Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith
The World Health Organization (WHO) recently published a recommendation that no person under 18 years of age should use a sunbed. This likely was based on the WHO’s 2003 document titled “Artificial Tanning Sunbeds: Risks and Guidance,” which contained a number of false, deceptive and misleading statements.
The first error that was made in the WHO report was that “artificial” UV radiation emitted by a sunlamp is different than the UV radiation emitted by the sun. The fact is that UV radiation is UV radiation no matter the irradiance source. Moreover, it is the dose (i.e., strength or power) of UV radiation that determines its biological activity, not the dose rate (i.e., how fast or slow it is delivered). Thus, the human body’s reaction to UVR is the same regardless of whether the UV-radiation source is sunlight or a sunlamp.
Even the WHO contradicts itself when its report states, “In principle, a person’s reaction to UV radiation (tanning or sunburning) is similar whether the exposure is due to natural (solar) or artificial (sunbed) UV radiation.”
Any difference in the human reaction to sunlight versus a sunlamp therefore would be caused by wavelengths in sunlight outside of the UV spectrum.
The next error made by the WHO report is stating, “Unlike some commercial sectors, the sunbed industry has not shown significant capacity to self-regulate effectively.” The U.S. indoor tanning industry has an enviable safety record with only one complaint received by the FDA (over a 15-year period) for every 100 million tanning sessions. Thus, it is clear that any failure to self-regulate found by the WHO only could have come from European tanning salons.
By far, the most-egregious scientific error made in the WHO report is the statement, “A sunbed-acquired tan offers only limited protection against sunburn from solar UV radiation. A tan developed in a sunbed has in most cases only the same protective effect as a SPF 2 or 3 sunscreen.”
The fact is the indoor tanning industry proves this statement is false several hundred thousand times each month when it helps clients increase their tolerance to UVR from 0.75 MED (minimal erythemal dose) to 4 MED over time— an increase of 5.33 times. A fully developed tan, including the thickening of the stratum corneum, will provide the protection afforded by an SPF 6-10 sunscreen.
Why It Was Written
The underlying reason why we believe the WHO report was written is found in the statement, “Artificial UV radiation devices are used to treat certain medical conditions such as vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis. However, such treatment only should be carried out under medical supervision.”
There you have it! The illogical and indefensible position of the WHO is that when UV radiation is used by a medical doctor to stimulate vitamin D it is acceptable, but when it is used by the indoor tanning industry it is unacceptable—even if the same sunlamp is used in both cases and if the normal, natural and contravolitional biological response is the same.
Thus, what appears to be behind the WHO report is the desire of the medical community to control the use of UV radiation to stimulate the production of vitamin D to make money. Everything else such as a) trying to ban anyone under the age of 18 from tanning, or b) claiming that a sunbed-induced tan doesn’t provide photoprotection and c) that sunbeds are responsible for the increase in skin cancer, etc., is just window dressing to hide the real agenda. The bottom line is that the medical community wants to control UVR in order to charge the American public $50 or more for the same thing that can be obtained for $10 per indoor tanning session.
The WHO doesn’t seem to recognize the health problems caused by vitamin D deficiency. The proof is illustrated by the fact that the commission launched by the WHO director-general to tackle the “causes behind the causes of ill health” fails to mention this serious worldwide problem. Thus, it is obvious the WHO is oblivious to the need for a convenient, consistent, controlled and cost-effective source of UVR, notwithstanding the fact that it would be beneficial. Indeed, the WHO appears to be more concerned with helping the medical community control the use of UVR to stimulate vitamin D than it is in helping the citizens of the world eliminate the debilitating diseases associated with vitamin D deficiency.
How Can You Help?
If you agree that the time has come to let organizations such as the WHO know that their false, deceptive and misleading statements are not acceptable to the professionals of the U.S. indoor tanning industry, you can log on to www.lookingfit.com and click on the button “Let WHO Know What You Think” and endorse the letter of protest that will be sent to the World Health Organization.
A copy of the 2003 WHO report is available at www.who.int/uv/publications/en/sunbeds.pdf. The WHO’s March 17 recommendation is available at www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np07/en/index.html.
