Posts Tagged ‘tanning’

h1

Indoor tanning results in high Vitamin D levels sez Boston Univ.

November 29, 2009

October 26th, 2009 – 10:34 PM

Just ‘D’ facts

Vitamin D isn’t a supplement or a vitamin. It’s a hormone made naturally when your skin is exposed to sunlight. No dietary source for “The Sunshine Vitamin” even comes close to vitamin D levels made naturally from UVB exposure.

What’s important is that 77 percent of Americans are vitamin D deficient, according to government data. The vitamin D research community now recommends vitamin D blood levels of 40-60 ng/ml – levels that nature meant for you to get from regular non-burning UV exposure. Any dermatologist who tells you otherwise is ignoring the facts and clings to the irrational sun-phobia that causes vitamin D deficiency.
Indoor tanners’ average vitamin D levels are 42-49 ng/ml, according to Boston University research — sufficient levels, and 90 percent higher than the rest of the population. That comes as no surprise; a single tanning session makes more vitamin D than 100 glasses of milk. In contrast, an Australian study reveals that dermatologists at the end of summer, when vitamin D levels should be their highest, are severely vitamin D deficient at 13.8 ng/ml.
So who’s in the dark here?
Vitamin D research has proven conclusively that you are designed to interact with sunlight, just as you are designed to breath air, drink water and eat food. It’s just a matter of time before dermatology and chemical sunscreen manufacturers are exposed for overstating the risks of UV – falsely suggesting that risks associated with repeated sunburn are also related to regular, non-burning exposure. That convenient omission has skyrocketed chemical sunscreen sales, turning a sunburn-prevention product into a daily over-use product. And that has contributed to vitamin D deficiency.

It’s time to expose yourself to something that should be obvious: It’s time to let the sun back into your life.

Don Kermath
University alumus

http://www.dailyillini.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/2009/10/26/just-d-facts

Advertisements
h1

The Truth About Tanning Beds

August 18, 2009
h1

The Tanning Industry In Line For The Biggest Class Action Lawsuit Ever Against the Medical Industry

August 1, 2009

What the medical industry is doing to the tanning industry and human health over all is just out of control.

“Study: Cancer risk jumps 75 percent if ultraviolet radiation device used before 30”

“LONDON – International cancer experts have moved tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer risk category, deeming them as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas.”

WOW! Mustard gas??? Arsenic??? Those are real scary sounding and tanning beds are just as dangerous???

Maybe or maybe not. If you do some research (which the news and media outlets clearly did not) you’ll see that TANNING BEDS have now been put in the same category as sunlight. As in “The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a group 1 classification since 1992.”

So Group 1 Classification. Well if it’s in group 1 it MUST BE dangerous if something like MUSTARD GAS is also in “group 1”!!!

Well, let’s see what else hangs in this group: (from: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Known_and_Probable_Carcinogens.asp)

Alcoholic beverages
Coal-tars
Mineral oils, untreated and mildly treated
Salted fish (Chinese-style)
Wood dust
Arsenic in drinking-water
Boot and shoe manufacture and repair
Chimney sweeping
Coke production
Furniture and cabinet making
Hematite mining (underground) with exposure to radon
Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or ‘environmental’ tobacco smoke)
Iron and steel founding
Isopropyl alcohol manufacture (strong-acid process)
Magenta production
Painter (occupational exposure as a)
Paving and roofing with coal-tar pitch
Rubber industry
Strong-inorganic-acid mists containing sulfuric acid (occupational exposure to)
Tobacco smoking and tobacco smoke

 Geez…it seems that there are a LOT of things that we are involved with during our DAILY ROUTINE that also fall under this Group 1 Classification as a Known Carcinogens. Coke production? Is this the drug? No the DRINK!

Furniture and cabinet making? Why is there no outrage over this?

Salted fish? WOOD DUST???!?!?!?! PAINTING?????

Shouldn’t someone be SOUNDING THE ALARMS ON THESE KILLERS? Why is there no HEADLINES WARNING OF THESE KILLERS???

It’s because it’s a bunch of HOCUS POCUS that’s why! But let’s stick to the main event. “TANNING BEDS AS BAD AS ARSENIC.” Now if something like SALTED FISH is on the same list why doesn’t the headline read TANNING AS BAD AS SALTED FISH!

Not quite as scary is it.

So let’s say that yes, tanning is as bad as salted fish. What does the medical industry recommend? SPF CREMES to starve off UV radiation?

Well, if you look at any SPF creme, you notice that 9 OUT OF 10 cremes contain MINERAL OIL.

 

Baby oil...99.99% MINERAL OIL...Cancer causing but recommended for your baby by doctors

Baby oil...99.99% MINERAL OIL...Cancer causing but recommended for your baby by doctors

 

MINERAL OIL….a product that APPEARS ON THE SAME LIST AS TANNING BEDS…is what DOCTORS recommend to starve off UV INDUCED SKIN CANCER.

How can this be? That must be only the junk SPF cremes right? NO doctor would RECOMMEND a class 1 carcinogen as safe right? As a matter of fact “Dermatologists agree that petrolatum (mineral oil) is the most effective moisturizing substance currently available.”

So tanning that’s on the same list as mineral oil and arsenic is bad for you to make headlines but mineral oil is highly recommended by dermatologists. (funny the tanning industry fully DENOUNCES mineral oil as an ingredient in their products for the very reason that it’s not good for the skin)

Why is this? What’s going on?

Seems that the dermatologists are thinking with their wallets these days as the products THEY make money off of CONTAIN MINERAL OIL. They don’t and can’t make money off of tanning and UV exposure so they pick on them as “dangerous” when the very products they promote fall into the same group as tanning beds.

Seems that if you look deeper into this, you’ll find that even the study to get tanning listed as a “Group 1 Classification as a Known Carcinogens” they needed to INVENT part of the study to even make it work! 75% increase!!!!! Scary sounding right? Almost sounds like if you go tanning your chances of getting cancer is 75%!!

Well, that is far from the case. The chances that you will die from skin cancer might be 1/10 of 1% or .1%. If that goes up by 75% (.001 x 1.75) then the risk is .00175 or 1.75%! So if the headlines read YOUR RISK OF CANCER FROM A TANNING BED IS NOW 1.75%!!! I guess it wouldn’t be as scary as 75% INCREASE!

But 75% of what? What is the BASE NUMBER again? See you can’t have an INCREASE of something unless you have a starting point to work off of. You can’t just say a car has 30% better MPG if there’s no original MPG number to work with (for instance).

Well, the problem here is THERE IS NO BASE NUMBER. They are just inventing one. NOW the “risk” above is RELATIVE RISK (again made up as there’s no starting point) but let’s pretend that it’s right on. This is the RELATIVE RISK of getting skin cancer 1.75. (or 75% increase like they are trying to claim)

Well here’s some quotes from pretty important people based on their role of determining RELATIVE RISK:

“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

New England journal of Medicine…Director of Drug Evaluation of the FDA….National Cancer Institite…these people are basically saying that this study is STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

THE PROBLEM IS the medical industry is DESTROYING PEOPLE’S LIVELY HOOD who work/own tanning salons for the sake of MAKING MONEY and nothing to do with good health! How can it be? They recommend products that are JUST AS DANGEROUS! In a time of economic downturn this cannot be allowed and should not be. The medical industry is SUPPOSED TO BE in the best interest of your good health and in this case they are not.

And this doesn’t even include the amount of Vitamin D your body produces when exposed to UVB from a tanning bed. There is a growing concern for the amount of people that are Vitamin D deficient (http://www.iofbonehealth.org/download/osteofound/filemanager/health_professionals/pdf/Vitamin-D-reports/Vitamin_D-North_America.pdf) which could be off set by simple UVB exposure from a tanning bed or the sun BUT the MEDICAL INDUSTRY clearly isn’t interested in fixing a problem that can lead to:

RICKETS
OSTEOPOROSIS
 HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE
TUBERCULOSIS
CANCER
PERIODONTAL DISEASE
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
CHRONIC PAIN
SEASONAL AFFECTIVE DISORDER
PERIPHERAL ARTERY DISEASE
COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT including MEMORY LOSS AND FOGGY BRAIN
TYPE 1 DIABETES
PARKINSON’S DISEASE

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D)

So all these ailments can be avoided with adequate Vitamin D levels and tanning beds have been shown to increase Vitamin D levels yet they make the headlines appear to suggest otherwise.
WHY? WHY ARE DOCTORS NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS???? WHY DO THEY WANT YOU VITAMIN D DEFICIENT?

You know what the BEST PART of the mineral oil based SPF cremes? They BLOCK UVB the main ingredient needed for your body to PRODUCE VITAMIN D! Seems to me that SPF cremes might be the cause of BOTH skin cancer AND Vitamin D deficiency and the baggage that comes with it.

Why is the tanning industry and the rest of the HUMAN WORLD for that matter NOT speaking out against this? Why are MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS falling for this scam that’s real simple to see through? Will it take the collapse of an entire REGULATED industry to see that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE for this? Then what? What happens when the skin cancer continues after the tanning salons are gone?

Who will they point the finger at next when Vitamin D deficiency GOES UP EVEN MORE? When the effects of vitamin D deficiency GOES THROUGH THE ROOF?

h1

What does SPF do again? (Lack of vitamin D can affect 36 organs – UPI.com)

October 15, 2008

Still think the sun is the problem? How about LACK OF SUN? That’s right folks. Vitamin D is quickly being recognized in the “war on good health” as the “missing link” to longevity.

So let’s do an experiment shall we. According to the MEDICAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION:

The recommended daily intake of vitamin D is 200 international units for people up to 50 years old, 400 IU for people 51 to 70 years old and 600 IU for people over 70. Norman recommends that all adults have an average daily intake of at least 2,000 IU.

Well, I just so happen to own some UV meters. That’s right folks, I will actually TEST this theory with actual SCIENCE and no wives tales or fun sound bites to mess things up…

…and the results are SHOCKING.

SPF is the problem NOT the solution!

SPF is the problem NOT the solution!

In the above example you will see that this is tested in a UV tanning bed. You will notice that the maximum tanning session time is 11min and for this experiment we will be tanning for 4min…low enough for anyone with even the lightest skin type to have no problems with overexposure.

If you wear the recommended SPF of 15 (Dermatologists will recommend this as a minimum) you will go from making more than enough Vitamin D to being GROSSLY deficient.

How is SPF good again?

Lack of vitamin D can affect 36 organs – UPI.com

Posted using ShareThis