The recent headline, “Tanning Beds as Deadly as Arsenic and Mustard Gas” caused many hard-working small-business owners to suffer serious financial damage. Sadly, not only was this headline untrue, it was also the result of a misunderstanding of the decision by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to upgrade both ionizing and ultraviolet radiation to Class I status (known to be a human carcinogen) from its previous Class II status (suspected to be a human carcinogen) – a decision that was based upon a series of “old lies” told by the dermatology community and the sunscreen industry over the past 30 years.
Before we evaluate the headline and the classification, let’s review what the IARC and U. S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) have to say about “agents and groups of agents, substances, mixtures, and exposure circumstances” that are classified under the Class I heading. (Note: Italics were added by authors to highlight specific verbiage.)
“The ‘Report on Carcinogens’ is an informational scientific and public health document that identifies and discusses agents, substances, mixtures or exposure circumstances that may pose a carcinogenic hazard to human health. It serves as a meaningful and useful compilation of data on (1) the carcinogenicity, genotoxicity and biologic mechanism of the listed substances in humans and/or animals, (2) the potential for exposure to these substances and (3) the regulations promulgated by federal agencies to limit exposures.
“The report does not present quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risk. Listing of substances in the report, therefore, does not establish that such substances present carcinogenic risks individuals in their daily life.”
“As stated above, the ‘Report on Carcinogens’ is a cancer health-hazard identification document. Therefore, it is not within the scope of this report to address potential benefits of exposures to certain carcinogenic substances in special situations.”
So, there you have it. A listing of an “agent and groups of agents, substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances” by the IARC and NTP means that listed items may be carcinogenic to humans – but it does not specify the dose required for the listed item to be a human carcinogen and it does not disclose whether or not the listed item might also be beneficial to humans.
Now let’s evaluate what the re-classification means in regard to ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation. The IARC decided that a number of ionizing radiation sources (alpha-particle emitters, beta-particle emitters, X-rays, gamma-rays and neutron radiation) should be upgraded to a Class I status. In regard to the inflammatory tanning headline, that means that:
•Dental X-rays are “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Does this mean you should find a dentist who can diagnose your dental problems without using X-rays?
•Mammograms are “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Does this mean that you should refuse a mammogram and potentially increase the risk of death from belatedly diagnosed breast cancer?
•Radon gas is “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Radon gas is found in almost every home in the world – how can it be totally avoided?
•Medical isotopes are “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Does this mean that you should turn down life-saving therapy simply because medical isotopes are present?
Non-ionizing radiation. The IARC also upgraded solar radiation and UV-emitting tanning devices to Class I status. In regard to the inflammatory tanning headline, that means that:
•PUVA therapy is “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Does this mean that an individual with severe psoriasis should forego this effective treatment? And does it mean that the dermatology community must stop offering this treatment?
•Photodynamic therapy is “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Does this mean that dermatologists must also cease using photodynamic therapy in the future, notwithstanding the fact that it has proven to be safe and effective?
•Facultative pigmentation development in sunlight or a tanning bed is “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Does this mean that, even though facultative pigmentation (better known as a “tan” by the public) provides the equivalent of a sunscreen with a SPF 6 to 12 , the public should not take advantage of this natural means of photoprotection?
•Vitamin D stimulation in sunlight or a tanning bed is “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Does this mean that, notwithstanding the fact that a tanning bed is a safe and effective source of vitamin D-effective photons, tanning beds should not be used as a means to help reduce the world-wide pandemic of vitamin D-mediated diseases? Given the fact that 70 percent to 90 percent of our daily requirement of vitamin D must be produced by UVR exposure, and sunlight is an uncontrolled and unreliable source of vitamin D-effective photons, why would any fair-minded person rule out this source of vitamin D that is available year-round? In addition, the IARC recommends that supplemental vitamin D be used even though there is a risk of toxicity involved (while there has never been a case of toxicity caused by UVR-induced vitamin D reported in the scientific literature) and even though there is no proof that supplemental vitamin D has the same biological potency as UVR-induced vitamin D.
Other designations. IARC has also classified many other common “agents and groups of agents, substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances” under Class I status. In regard to the inflammatory tanning headline, that means that:
•Tamoxifen is “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” Does this mean that, if you suffer from contra-lateral breast cancer and your doctor recommends this drug that has proven to be safe and effective, you should refuse?
•Oral contraceptives are “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” So, what do you do if you want to prevent an unplanned pregnancy?
•Alcoholic beverages are “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” So, are you supposed to ignore the plethora of studies showing that moderate alcohol consumption has significant health benefits, both physical and mental?
•MOPP chemotherapy is “as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.” So, what do you do if you suffer from Hodgkin’s disease and your doctor prescribes this treatment modality?
These examples should make it clear you that none of the “agents, substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances” listed as Class I by the IARC and NTP should be avoided just because they are listed. In fact, when the benefits outweigh the risks involved, avoidance doesn’t make sense and may actually (especially in the case of UVR exposure) be harmful.
Frankly, the logic that “tanning beds are as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas” can be seen for what it really is – a new lie – and therefore, should not be believed anymore than the “old lies” should be believed.
Here are some of the most popular old lies:
80 percent of lifetime UVR exposure occurs in the first 18 years of life. This has been used so often by the dermatology community and the sunscreen industry over the past 30 years that it is accepted by the media and public as a fact. The only problem is that it is not – and never has been – true. In fact, in response to our request, Health Canada has removed this deceptive claim from all literature and, recently, a respected FDA official published a scientific paper stating that a person living to be 72 years of age would accumulate only 25 percent of their total lifetime UVR exposure during their first 18 years of life.
Facultative pigmentation provides only limited sunburn protection. This flies in the face of more than 30 years of research by respected dermatologists and photobiologists. Development of UVR-induced facultative pigmentation provides the same protection against sunburn as does a sunscreen with SPF 6 to 12.
A tan is a sign of skin damage. The only way this can be considered true is if you define the word “damage” so narrowly, it becomes virtually meaningless. For example, it’s like saying that an obese person should remain obese because the muscle tearing that results from physical exercise is a sign of muscle damage.
UVR exposure causes cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). The absence of a molecular signature linking UVR exposure to CMM proves that UVR is not the cause of CMM. Rather, UVR exposure causes the keratinocytes that make up an epidermal melanin unit (EMU) to send a signal to the melanocyte servicing them to produce more melanin and, when the melanocyte cannot keep up with the demand, another signal is sent telling the melanocyte to divide. Then, for reasons not currently understood, the signal telling the melanocyte cell to stop dividing sometimes gets scrambled – which results in an immortal cell, i.e., a CMM. The link between UVR and CMM is, therefore, coincidental and not causal.
We hope that everyone reading this article keeps in mind the irrefutable fact that ultraviolet radiation is the only “agent, groups of agents, substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances” listed as a Class I carcinogen by the IARC and NTP that is required for maintaining human life. No lie – old or new – can circumvent that very important fact.
Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith operate the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute in Tucson, Ariz. They have written many articles promoting the benefits of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure (CURE). You can e-mail comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com.
Related Articles:
