UVR-Induced Vitamin D: 

UVR-Induced Vitamin D: 
The Elephant Sitting In The Living Room— Part III

by Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith

This is the third in a series of articles that discuss the what, where, when, how and why reasons that vitamin D is so important to the health and welfare of Americans. Please check out the first two installments of the series in the June and July issues, respectively, or view them online at www.lookingfit.com. 

This third installment shows 1) why augmenting a balanced diet and taking a daily 1,000 IU-2,000 IU vitamin supplement with a regimen of sensible, moderate and responsible UVR exposure in the controlled, consistent and convenient environment of an indoor tanning salon is the ideal way to safely attain and maintain an optimal blood level (i.e., 150 nmol/L) of vitamin D year-round, and 2) why UVR does not induce cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM).

It takes approximately one hour (30 minutes per side) of whole-body sunlight exposure and approximately double this time for face and hand exposure at noon on a typical Midwestern summer day to accumulate the minimum dose of vitamin D-effective photons required by the average person (a skin subtype 3A) in the United States.

Compare these times with the fact that it takes only an average of 10 minutes (six to 14) for a 360-degree tanning device to deliver the same whole-body dose of vitamin Deffective photons and it becomes evident why tanning devices are a controlled, consistent and convenient way to maintain an optimal (150 nmol/L) vitamin D level. Sunlight is uncontrolled and varies by time of day, season and environmental conditions; therefore, it can be seen that tanning devices are ideal because they can deliver the same dose of UVR photons at 8 a.m., noon and 8 p.m. year-round.

Because the “elephant sitting in the living room” is being ignored, it means that the American public is not being told that 1) sensible, moderate and responsible UVR exposure is required to safely attain and maintain optimal blood levels of vitamin D, and 2) indoor tanning salons in the United States constitute a controlled, consistent and convenient source of the vitamin D-effective photons required for our health and well-being. Therefore, it’s time to take a look at the primary tool used by the sun-scare coalition to demonize any and all UVR exposure.

The first tool used by the sun-scare coalition to demonize any and all UVR exposure was to promote the fear of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC). However, after the American public realized that only 400 to 600 deaths each year can be attributed to basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, it became necessary to “promote” the concept that cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) with an estimated 6,000 deaths each year also was induced by UVR. The sunscare coalition used very weak and unsubstantiated epidemiological data to “link” UVR to CMM and quickly changed from saying “UVR may be linked to CMM” to “UVR is known to be linked to CMM” to “UVR is known to cause CMM” in scientific articles.

Two new studies published in the last year utilizing specific molecular data refute the notion that there is a link between UVR and CMM.

• 1. The Wang Study. A paper published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Vol. 97, No. 24, 1822-1831, 12/21/05) by Wang, et al, titled “In Vitro Sensitivity to Ultraviolet B Light and Skin Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Analysis” showed that although there was a link between UVR and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), there was no link between UVR and CMM when the sensitive and specific “chomatid break” assay was used. Wang, et al, concluded that “UVB-induced mutagen sensitivity may play a role in susceptibility to NMSC but not to CMM.”
• 2. The DeFabo Study. A paper published in the journal Cancer Research (Vol. 64, 6372-6376, 9/15/04) by DeFabo, et al, titled “Ultraviolet B but not Ultraviolet A Radiation Initiates Melanoma” showed that UVA (UVA1 and UVA2) wavelengths do not induce CMM in a mouse specifically bred to develop a “human-like” CMM (even at very high doses) and that UVB only was able to induce CMM when mice three days old or less (i.e., still an embryo) were subjected to UVR doses much higher than would be experienced in either sunlight or in a tanning device.

Taken together, these two studies show that UVR does not induce CMM ; therefore, the UVR-avoidance message by the sun-scare coalition should be discounted by the American public.

As the citations above show, there is now sensitive and specific molecular evidence showing that UVR does not induce CMM and since NMSC is not likely to cause death, the scare tactics used by the sun-scare coalition are false, deceptive and misleading and, therefore, should be viewed skeptically by the American public.

Therefore, since sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR—especially in the controlled, consistent and convenient environment of an indoor tanning salon—is the most efficient and safest way to attain and maintain an optimal blood level (150 nmol/L) of vitamin D, the public message should be to encourage more UVR exposure, not less.

Moreover, it is totally unacceptable for any individual or entity to recommend sun avoidance given the fact that there are at least 150 to 250 premature deaths each year due to underexposure to UVR for every one premature death due to overexposure to UVR—especially since $100 is spent each year on underexposure to UVR for every $1 spent on overexposure to UVR.

The bottom line is that everyone in the indoor tanning industry can take justifiable pride in our dual message that 1) the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to UVR outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved, and 2) don’t ever sunburn turns out to be exactly what is best for the health and welfare of the American public.

Part IV of the series continues next month and will show how to reduce the incidence of NMSC by 60 percent. In October, Part V will provide scientific data showing what really induces CMM.