Is The Glass Half Full Or Half Empty?

by Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith

When we joined the indoor tanning industry almost nine years ago, there were very few articles in medical journals and in the national media that could be considered to be favorable to the indoor tanning industry and/or exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR).

However, about five years ago a small trickle of scientific articles regarding the adverse consequences of vitamin D deficiency started to be published in respected medical journals. Now, that trickle has turned into a steady stream of favorable articles.

In addition, books published over the past few years such as The World of Light by Friedrich Wolff; Sunlight by Zane R. Kime, M.D., M.S.; The Healing Sun by Richard Hobday, Ph.D., M.Sc.; Daylight Robbery by Oliver Gillie, Ph.D.; and especially The UV Advantage by Michael F. Holick, M.D., Ph.D. have, slowly but surely, moved forward the important message that sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR provides significant benefits to human beings.

An excellent article titled “A Neglected Nutrient” and subtitled “Are Americans dying from a lack of vitamin D?” by Joan Raymond and Jerry Adler was published in the Jan. 17, 2005 issue of Newsweek magazine. The authors stated:

The article also contained a statement by Dr. Robert Heaney of Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., who said, “I think that we may find that vitamin D deficiency is a public-health crisis.”

The constant barrage of anti-tanning rhetoric by the dermatology community and the sunscreen industry, for their own vested-interest financial reasons, has caused many Americans to avoid sunlight, wear clothing covering their entire body and slather on a high-SPF sunscreen when exposed to ultraviolet radiation—and all of these factors have exacerbated the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency.

In addition, our work to develop a vitamin D action spectrum at the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute (NIRRI) makes it possible to determine the time it takes for an irradiance source, i.e., a sunlamp, sunbed or sunlight, to stimulate the production of pre-vitamin D.

Our sunlight data indicate that a much longer whole-body exposure to UVR is required than previously thought, presumably because of atmospheric pollution that restricts the vitamin Dproducing wavelengths from reaching the earth. Therefore, in addition to sun avoidance, protective clothing, sunscreen use and the fact that the food we eat is a poor source of vitamin D, we must factor into the vitamin D-deficiency equation that sunlight reaching the earth today makes necessary longer exposure times than previously thought.

Sunbeds are a convenient and cost-effective source for stimulating vitamin D production.

An article titled “Tanning is associated with optimal vitamin D status (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration) and higher bone mineral density” by Tangpricha, Turner, Spina, Decastro, Chen and Holick  that was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that:

1) “The regular use of a tanning bed that emits vitamin D-producing ultraviolet radiation is associated with higher 25(OH)D concentrations and thus may have a benefit for the skeleton,” and 2) “The use of tanning beds has been promoted to the public for the cosmetic purpose of tanning but this study shows that a moderate use of tanning beds may also provide some medical benefit.”

Indeed, the study showed that the subjects who used a tanning bed had vitamin D levels almost double the level of the control subjects who did not use a tanning bed, and that the tanners “had significantly higher BMD [bone mineral density]” and “parathyroid hormone concentrations 18% lower” than the control subjects who did not tan.

In our opinion, the answer to that question is yes, the indoor tanning industry has every reason to be optimistic about the future.

That does not mean, however, that the dermatology community is suddenly going to change its opinion and start recommending more sunlight exposure (although they should) or recommending patronizing an indoor tanning salon (although, once again, they should). Rather, we can expect to see more statements (some have already occurred) from moderate dermatologists indicating that perhaps 20 minutes of UVR exposure a couple of times a week won’t cause the world to end.

Does that mean that the “radical fringe” of the dermatology community that advocates total UVR avoidance will change its tune? Not in this lifetime, but keep in mind that by ignoring the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence showing that the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible UVR exposure outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved, they could be setting themselves up for a costly class-action lawsuit.

In addition, you can expect to see other medical specialties, especially the ones that must treat patients suffering from vitamin Dmedicated diseases such as osteoporosis, cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes and obesity, to begin speaking out about the need for more UVR exposure.

The bottom line is that you should resolve to be optimistic, i.e., to see the glass half full instead of half empty, about the future of the indoor tanning industry because 1) the scientific evidence supports our position that the American public needs more sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR, 2) sunbeds have been shown to be a consistent, convenient and cost-effective source of vitamin D-effective UVR, and 3) the latest scientific studies confirm that optimists live longer and happier lives than do pessimists.