As this firestorm (i.e. tanning being labeled a definite cause of skin cancer) rages, keep a few things in mind:

• There is nothing new in the Lancet Oncology article; rather, it is a regurgitation of the same tired, discredited studies.
• The claims that tanning is as dangerous as mustard gas and arsenic is over the top; therefore, the public will discount this information.

Honestly, we should look at the IARC/Lancet article as an opportunity rather than a problem. If we do so, perhaps we will look back and see that this article was the final straw that got our (collective) heads out of the sand.

In future posts (and in an article I am writing for Looking Fit), I will provide the facts to refute the lies in this article. In the meantime, our collective position should be that:

1. Comparing the normal and natural process of tanning to mustard gas and arsenic (and smoking) has no basis and can only be intended to financially damage the small business owners of the indoor tanning industry.

2. Saying that UVR has no health benefits proves that the authors of the Lancet study are biased and/or do not understand that there are more than 50 diseases and conditions that are moderated by vitamin D. (Look for my upcoming article in the September issue of LF for more on this topic.)

3. The study claiming that the risk for skin cancer increases by 75 percent (i.e., a 1.76 relative risk) for individuals that tan indoors before age 30 failed to correct for skin type/subtype and UVR dose. When these corrections are made, there was no increased risk of CMM from tanning bed use shown.

4. There is only a coincidental (not causal) link between CMM and UVR. (Click here to read a recent article discussing this fact.)

5. The articles purporting to show that exposure to sunlight, UVR or a tanning device causes CMM all have various forms of bias (i.e., researcher bias, publication bias, recall bias, misclassification bias, methodology bias, sample-size bias, etc.) and these confounding factors make them scientifically invalid. In addition, the studies claiming to show that sunlight, UVR or a tanning device causes CMM all have very small RR values—less than 2.0—when the authors know, or reasonably should know, that a RR of at least 3.0 is required to prove that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between two events. In case they forgot, here are a few quotes to remind them:

• “As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3.0 or more before accepting a paper for publication.” –Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal Of Medicine
• “My basic rule is, if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” –Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation for the U.S. Food And Drug Administration
• “Relative risks of less than 3.0 are considered small and are difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, coincidence, statistical bias or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” –Excerpt from a National Cancer Institute publication

Frankly, it is time to get back in the game. By that I mean that we must have industry representatives interfacing with the media on our behalf. Also, it is time to assemble a small task force of knowledgeable people to help these representatives formulate their responses/comments.

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 Content:

Melanoma And Tanning

Melanoma Myth Is Based On F.E.A.R.

IARC Moves Tanning Equipment To Top Cancer-Risk Category

ITA Releases Fact Sheet Regarding Tanning Classification