Reflection

I started this blog a little over a year ago and when looking back on what has happened over the year, I think this has been a good experiment. Over the last few months I have neglected posting because I have been transitioning to a new job and working my old job until a suitable replacement was found. I am happy to report, I finished training that suitable replacement and I am down to one job now. So I have more time on my hands,  I have been thinking about if I feel writing about my tanning experience has been worthwhile and if I should continue. Based on the feedback I have had from friends and strangers, I am going to keep blogging, and I plan to put more effort into keeping it up because I believe my experience has actually helped people.

I have been amazed at how many people have contacted me after reading my blog, or have messaged me on Facebook after reading a comment I have made on an article. I hear from people who have been diagnosed with Vitamin D deficiency with levels in single digits or low numbers like my own when I started tanning. This is a widespread problem and I can’t help but think about the dermatologist testifying in Denver about how Vitamin D deficiency isn’t all that common and it is just a red herring.  He was very wrong.  I am just a small time blogger and I have heard stories from dozens of people over the last year that have the same deficiency story I had.  I am not an isolated incident and I know that because of the feedback over the year.

I have heard from people that tell me that their doctor recommended tanning to treat their deficiency, but they are afraid to tan because they think it is an automatic skin cancer sentence. They don’t understand that moderation is the primary goal in a professional salon. After reading my story, they have a little different perspective. I am not here to sell anyone on tanning, I just want to spread the word that there is more to it than what the media and medical industry want them to know. I want people to know the other side and research the benefits of moderate, responsible tanning. Then they can make a more informed decision about what is right for them.

There are some people I know personally that have decided to tan in a professional salon because of my experience. They have come to me asking questions about salons I recommend and how I got started. I have been approached by strangers asking about how long and how often I tanned. I always tell them to find a salon they are comfortable with and make sure they get a tanning schedule based on their own skin type.  What worked for me will not work for everyone and a trained professional would be better at helping with those kinds of questions than I would. I’m just here to say that tanning is a viable option for people like me and that there can be successes and benefits if that is the path they choose.

So I feel good about having had a little influence over turning around some of the negative connections people make to tanning. I hope to continue to tell my story and at least get some people to think twice before just assuming the worst. Tanning worked for me, and I am not alone, it is time our stories are heard.

Common Nonsense

While reading several articles and comments on articles about tanning I am amazed at how often professional salons are blamed for skin cancer. There seems to be a lot of common misunderstandings and arguments that pop up regularly. Here are the arguments I see consistently, observations of how people view tanning, and the reactions to my pro tanning story. Sometimes I feel like a broken record when I respond to the “facts” that are attributed to how bad tanning is for you.

In just about every article about tanning, I see the World Health Organization’s statistic that when a person tans before 35, their risk of skin cancer increases by 75 percent. I’ve touched on this statistic many times in this blog before about how the data shows most of that increased risk comes from other sources of sunbeds, not professional salons. Namely the biggest contributor to that statistic is from Phototherapy treatments administered by Dermatologists. To refresh your memory, or if you haven’t read my previous posts, the risk increase associated with Phototherapy is a whopping 96 percent. Home units were found to increase the risk by 40 percent and professional salons showed an increased risk of 6 percent. It seems logical that we would want to limit phototherapy and home units instead of professional salons. Yet Dermatologists use the W.H.O. statistic as a weapon against the tanning industry. They just spout that 75 percent increased risk without disclosing that their practices are the ones that make up that percentage and in reality, professional salons bring down the average by their small risk comparatively.

It baffles my mind that law makers and the media take their statement as fact that professional salons are solely responsible for that high number. There is no accountability of how they are contributing to the risk of skin cancer. Details, details, don’t let the data’s details be known, I’m a doctor, I wear a white coat, do not doubt me, don’t look at facts, take my word for it. The arrogance by the Dermatologists I’ve seen testifying in the two legislative hearings I attended is palpable. They put on their white coats to talk about how tanning causes cancer; they don’t need to actually back up their statements or have the science behind their claims because they are wearing white coats, they went to school for a long time. The thing that is so bothersome is that much of the time, it works. For some reason no one really questions doctors, they don’t look at what the data shows, only that end result of 75 percent risk increase. For those of you that are Scrubs fans, it reminds me of when JD had his first day as a resident and he came in wearing a white coat saying to everyone he saw, “You’re going to be ok, I’m a doctor.” His attitude was people will listen to me now because I am wearing a white coat. I have seen this attitude many times when discussing the risk of skin cancer in a public forum.  I question anyone who says that this equipment is so dangerous, but want to still use it to treat their own clients at an inflated price. But apparently it isn’t ok to point out hypocrisy.  Think about it, what the Dermatologist lobby is pushing for when testifying to limit access of professional salons is that THEY should be allowed to be the ones increasing the risk of skin cancer because they are wearing white coats and they can bill health insurance to do it. It makes no sense.

I have a personal story proving my life has improved thanks to sunbeds used responsibly in a professional salon. I have a healthy Vitamin D level, I do not suffer the muscle aches anymore, I can exercise without pain and have lost weight as a result, and I can spend time outdoors now. My story is treated like a nice little anecdote, and an anomaly. I am not the only one with my kind of story. Since starting this blog I have been contacted by friends, family, and strangers with similar experiences. I have had people say they didn’t know what was wrong with them, and after hearing my story they had their Vitamin D level checked and found out they were severely Vitamin D deficient like me. I have had people come to me and tell me they have had trouble tolerating supplements and didn’t really know what their other options were. I am amazed at how many people have told me their Vitamin D levels that are in the single digit range. I hear these stories regularly. I think about one doctor at a legislative hearing who said that Vitamin D deficiency really isn’t a problem here in Colorado. He called it a “red herring” that the tanning industry created. That we have so much sunshine throughout the year that our state doesn’t see many cases of deficiency, as I sat behind him recalling the e-mails I have received, and texts from family and friends that live in this area who heard my story and got themselves checked. I knew what he was saying was not true, but people believed him because he is a doctor. It is nonsense. I just read an article today saying that a third of the world’s population has low Vitamin D so that indicates that it really IS a problem in every state, every country. We are not a small percentage of people with deficient levels. It is becoming a more common problem because our lifestyle of spending so much more time indoors combined with the constant message that we should protect ourselves from sun exposure. If that message doesn’t change, and the majority of the population avoids any and all UV, we are going to find ourselves with many other, more dangerous health issues in the future.

I see the attitude towards tanning as if there is no such thing as moderation, like everyone that goes to a salon looks like the “tanning mom”. She is not the face of tanning. It is frustrating to read the comments about how all people who tan look orange, old, leathery, etc. People tend to believe a person who tans is simply vain and that they are only looking for a bronzed body. That is a stereotype and part of the reason I wanted to speak out about my experience with tanning. I am more of a typical tanner. No one would guess I tan, even I wouldn’t be able to tell I am tan if I didn’t have tan lines because I am so fair. My tan is subtle and most of the people I see come and go from the salon I use look more like me. Not over tan, just normal skin tones. I am told constantly that I don’t look old enough to have children in their twenties, I know people who have tanned for years that don’t look old or leathery. But when I point that out in my story or in comments, I get replies about how stupid I am and that I am promoting skin cancer. I really don’t think people even read my comments all the way through, most of the time they just jump on me about their own opinions and they attack me for having a positive story to tell.  I get, “You could get that result by taking a pill, and supplements would have worked just as well.”  They don’t see that my point is that taking a pill is an option, but UV exposure works more efficiently and effectively. It is the more natural way to get Vitamin D. I think people should know that.

Another common argument I see against professional salons is that “we must protect the children.” I see this a lot because there are so many states considering banning anyone under 18 from tanning in a professional salon. Some states have passed such a law but there is no common sense to these laws. They are sending the message that sunbeds in salons are the biggest risk, using that WHO study as the evidence of the high risk, but ignoring how the data shows that salons are actually the lowest risk. Common sense would dictate that the logical thing to do to prevent skin cancer would be to educate kids on moderate UV exposure. Professional salons are the only place where you can get UV in a controlled environment. Science shows that overexposure to UV is risky. Professional salons limit access based on skin type to prevent overexposure. Personally speaking, the worst burn I ever had was because I was in the sun too long at a water park. No one came up to me and said, you have been out here too long for a fair skin type 2 if you don’t get out of the sun you will burn badly. Professional salons won’t let a person tan too long, they won’t risk a client getting sunburn, they dictate how long and how often a person tans based on their skin type and the science and research that went into skin typing works. Realistically, the water parks, pools, parks, amusement parks, beaches, et al are where overexposure is most common. So if we really want to “protect the children” by banning them from places where they can be risking skin cancer, we should ban them from these public places right? That suggestion would be ridiculous wouldn’t it? But suggesting we ban access to a place that rarely causes sunburn is somehow logical and there are many people who believe this will resolve skin cancer risks in teens.  Where is the common sense? It is completely backwards thinking.

I have seen two articles just this week with personal stories blaming sunbeds in salons for melanoma. The articles talk about how one person owned their own sunbed so they tanned without restriction. One was a doctor that blamed sunbeds for his melanoma but mentioned that his mother also had melanoma and there was a history of skin cancer in his family. Neither of these articles focused on that part of the story, they focused on how these two people tanned in salons and ended up with melanoma. They placed the blame completely on salons without suggesting that there were other factors that contributed to the disease. They focused on how teens should be banned from salons to prevent more stories like these. But again, that doesn’t make sense. Why would a person who had a family history of a skin cancer point the finger of blame on tanning salons when it is possible they could have gotten the disease even if they had never tanned? I have mentioned in previous posts, my mom had skin cancer and she has never set foot in a tanning salon. Who shall we blame for her basil cell carcinoma? She is fair skinned and she has had some bad sunburns in her lifetime, so should we blame MY tanning for her skin cancer? That seems like the type of angle some of these articles would eat up. We can forget that she was diagnosed years before I even set foot in a tanning salon and that she isn’t my biological mother. There doesn’t need to be common sense or logic if we can somehow make a connection to skin cancer and tanning salons.

So why is it so hard for these personal stories to acknowledge that there may have been another cause to their skin cancer? Why can’t the message be that overexposure is dangerous and linked to skin cancer? Why can’t there be acknowledgement that professional salons take steps to avoid overexposure and there is a much lower risk when you use them? That is the proper message, the right approach, and it happens to be the message that the tanning industry tries to promote. What we need is to get people to think about how much UV they are getting. We need them to be better about paying attention to their skin and when they should use sunscreen. People should understand that moderate, responsible UV is beneficial. Why does the message of avoiding any and all UV get repeated over and over again when it is clearly unbalanced and dangerous? We need to have a healthy balanced approach and attitude about UV.  The medical industry and media is going about this the wrong way by not giving both sides of the story and showing that moderation is the best answer when it comes to UV.

Can I get an AMEN?!?!?!

I came across an article earlier this week with some serious misinformation about tanning. It was attacking the industry as if it is the one and only source of all skin cancer. Oh how frustrating to read. The comments were mostly those following suit about how evil tanning is. Many comments were exactly what I blogged about last week stating myths as facts and spouting garbage about how only vain people tan.

I was unable to post anything on the article at the time I read it so I decided to come back to it later. I did a search later that night and found a rebuttal to the article that I could not improve upon if I tried.  If only I could be so eloquent when stating my opinion.

I am so impressed with how the rebuttal was written I feel I should share it with my readers. Check it out.

http://junkscience.com/2013/07/10/tanning-nanny-investment-banker-ex-obama-official-peter-orszag-attacks-misinforms-indoor-tanning/

Mythology

I've touched on it a bit in earlier posts on this blog, there seems to be some serious misconceptions about tanning by the general public. I guess it is time to address some of these myths.   I see article comments all the time that are repeated enough so people think it is true. Well, in my experience, I haven’t found any of them to be true so I am playing myth buster today.

“Tanning turns a person’s skin orange” Myth, at least for UV tanning.  A UV tan from a sunbed tans your skin the same way the sun would. It is a natural reaction in the skin, so the color is a natural color based on a person’s skin type. The fairer the skin type, the lighter the tan. I don’t have much experience with spray tans, but the two times I have done that, the color has been natural as well. I have found the orange tone that people refer to, comes from self-tanning lotions that can be bought at a drug store. There are chemicals involved that turn the skin an un-natural tone for the most part. Unfortunately, people associate that color with sunbed use and that is not the case.

“Using a sunbed causes skin cancer” Now this is really a hot issue. Overexposure to UV (i.e. sunburn) has been linked to skin cancer.  When sunbeds are used irresponsibly they most certainly can cause sunburn and therefore raise the risk of skin cancer. This is why going to a professional salon is so important. Salons limit how long and how often a person tans based on their skin type. The fairest skin type (skin type 1) is turned away from sunbed use by a salon. They know the age of the bulbs installed, the type of equipment they provide and they stick to safety measures in place to prevent sunburn. Salons also educate their customers on the use of SPF products and skin care to avoid sunburn outside of the salon. They promote healthy, moderate UV exposure. So sunbed use in a salon is actually the safest method of UV exposure.

“Tan people have leathery skin and look old” Tanned skin is thicker, yes, and over a long period of time, wrinkles do happen. But not much more than a non-tanner in my opinion, I really think this one has to do with genetics more than anything. I know some people who have tanned for years that look unbelievably young for their age.  This one is more of a matter of opinion and perspective, but I see many comments from people speculating that if someone tans, they are going to look like a catcher’s mitt within a year.

“Tanning cooks your skin and organs” This one wasn't helped by the Seinfeld episode where Kramer falls asleep in a tanning bed and Newman imagines him as a roasted turkey.  The fact of the matter is you can not cook your organs or your skin. You can burn your skin from overexposure, just like a sunburn from too much time outdoors. But to think it is like some sort of microwave oven for the body is completely false. I dare anyone to cook anything in a sunbed. It can’t be done.

One last myth I want to address is something I commonly hear from people when discussing sunburn prevention. “My burn turns into a tan” or “I have to burn first and then I can tan after that” These are not comments I see when reading articles, but I do hear it a lot. It is a myth.  People seem to think that they naturally just burn the first few times they are in the sun in the beginning of summer, and then it just magically turns into a tan. The fact is that they are not being responsible with UV exposure. They go outside and stay outside too long the first few times causing overexposure and burn. The layers of skin a little deeper are tan because the outer layers protected them from the burn. Once that outer layer peels off it shows tan. But this isn't safe. Sunburn should always be avoided. A person needs to build up exposure time slowly to get a base tan. I have actually had people tell me, “I don’t wear sunscreen in the beginning of summer so I can get a burn, and then that turns into a tan” It amazes me that some people intentionally get a sunburn thinking that is the only way they will tan. The reality is that if these same people would spend less time in the sun, or put sunscreen on their skin after a short period of time and slowly build a base tan, they would not be damaging their skin with sunburns.

So these are just some of the common misconceptions I see regularly. I think it is time to start using common sense when reading articles. Most of them I see are written in a way that is not balanced, but skewed heavily towards the “tanning is evil” perspective. One day I hope to see more articles that tell another side of the story, or at least both sides of the story. Until that day, I am here to tell my story of how tanning can be beneficial and is a good alternative to the medical industry's  message of UV avoidance.

A-TAN-TION

This Memorial Day weekend was particularly difficult for me. You see, my 23 year old son has joined the Air Force. He left for basic training on Tuesday, right after Memorial Day. He made the decision in the fall and went in for his physical with MEPS in late November 2012. He passed with flying colors with one exception, severe acne. I had no idea that the Air Force would disqualify someone over acne, but apparently that is possible. They told him that everything checked out, but if his skin didn’t clear up before it was time to ship off to basic training, they would disqualify him. He left for a quick trip out of town at the end of November and thought things over about what he should do. He has tried things in the past like Proactiv, and other similar acne systems with little success.  He could go to a Dermatologist to treat it, but the methods they use would include antibiotics that would alter his body chemistry and stay in his system for months which would show up in a UA and that would disqualify him immediately.

In December he approached me and said he wanted to give tanning a try. He had been looking up alternative solutions online and there were many testimonials about success through tanning.  We headed to Tan the Moon and spoke with the manager Katherine and she got him set up with a special. She walked him through the process and discussed what his goals were. She recommended a schedule for him based on his skin type and he started tanning regularly.  By February his skin was the clearest I’ve seen it in years.  When I asked him about it he said he felt it was helping, but he also started using Tea Tree Oil soap and went back to a Vegan diet so he felt the combination of all three of those things were contributing. Hey, whatever works, I was impressed with how it all started coming together for him.

He was scheduled to ship out May 7^th and at the end of April had a bit of a set back because he had a few areas that were starting to break out again. He had stopped tanning as regularly, but was still using the special soap. They decided to push back his ship out date by 3 weeks to give him time to get it cleared up again. He started back with his regular tanning schedule and on May 23^rd it was clear enough to pass MEPS and he was given the green light to ship out 5 days later.

Had I known that he could have cleared up his problem skin so easily, I would have had him tan years ago. I would have had him go in his high school years. That is why it bothers me so much that there are so many states trying to pass laws banning anyone under 18 from tanning. It doesn’t make sense to me now that I know what good can come from tanning.

Healthy Vitamin D Level

I got my blood test results back from my doctor a few weeks ago.  My Vitamin D level is at an above average 63ng/ml. (Target range is in the 40-60ng/ml) Knowing my level helps me gauge how I am doing with my health. Last year when I was tanning for short periods of time every 2-3 days and gradually building my base tan, I was tested and had a blood level of 75ng/ml. Halfway through the summer I started scaling back my time in the sunbed to shift into more of a “maintenance mode”. I was also spending more time outdoors so I knew my level was likely very high.  Once the fall and winter came around, I continued my “maintenance” schedule of tanning 12-15 minutes every 7-10 days in a sunbed with a 20 minute maximum.  Just 3 months ago my salon replaced those 20 minute max beds with 15 minute max beds and I adjusted my time down again to 5-6 minutes once a week.  To find that I am maintaining a high Vitamin D level through these adjustments is reassuring to me that I am doing what is best for my health. 

May is Natural Breast Cancer Prevention Month.  What many people don’t know is that a healthy Vitamin D level is a great way to naturally prevent breast cancer.  That is because Vitamin D slows/ prevents cell mutation.  I wouldn’t presume to be an expert on the subject as to how it all works. I have looked up a few sites and perhaps just posting links to those sites would be more beneficial for you, the reader to look at. 

http://preventbc.org/

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/vitamin-D

Legislation and Me

I had the opportunity to testify before a State Senate committee hearing again this week. The bill being proposed is asking to make a law requiring parental consent for anyone under 18. That consent is to be renewed every 6 months. While I think it is unnecessary, I am not completely opposed to the bill. Currently professional salons require consent for anyone under 18 voluntarily, so really the only major change would be that it is required by law and the frequency of the consent renewal.

I got word from my salon that there was talk that there would be an amendment proposed to completely ban anyone under 18 from tanning. I made sure I would be there to voice my concerns about how a ban would be a mistake. Sure enough, one of the Senators said she would be introducing an amendment to ban anyone under the age of 18 from tanning through a professional salon, so I am glad I went.  Well, of course, guess who is the FIRST person called up to testify. While I am not terribly comfortable in this kind of setting, I didn’t have a chance to think about it much since I was the first one to go. I guess that may have worked to my advantage.

The tanning industry had a few people that testified after me with some very interesting data. Some of which I have learned while doing my own research, but I certainly learned some new things as well. For instance, Melanoma is more common in someone that works indoors than someone with a job spent outdoors. Seems to me that means that UV exposure ISN’T the black and white cause of melanoma that the medical industry would like us to believe. Clearly there are other factors that contribute. Also, there have been surveys done that show that 3 out of 4 teens that currently tan, with their parent’s permission, would seek out home units or tan aggressively outdoors if there were a ban preventing them to go to a salon. Banning teens from the one source that has extensive safety measures in place, will end up increasing these teen’s health risks. That isn’t the result these lawmakers want, yet many of them don’t want to admit that. They are told that all of the increased cancer risks come exclusively from tanning in professional salons. That isn’t true, home units are much more dangerous and increase a person’s risk by 40 percent because there are no limits to how often or how long a person tans, and there is no skin type assessment to set the limits.

There were Dermatologists testifying again that the bill doesn’t go far enough and were pushing for the full ban. The Dermatologists said things that were completely false. Not just skewed, but flat out lies. One dermatologist said that “no UV is safe” “47% of tanners are addicted” and that “salons let clients tan daily” None of those statements are true. Another doctor claimed that sunbeds are 10-15 times more intense than the summer sun at noon. That is not true as I have written about before; sunbeds are only 2-3 times more intense than the sun and you spend a fraction of the time in a sunbed to avoid overexposure.      I couldn’t take notes fast enough to get all of the inaccurate statements and only caught one of their names. Dr. Hunter H Sams, a dermatologist said, “Adequate amounts of Vitamin D can be derived easily from our diet.” As I have written in prior blogs, it is impossible to get sufficient amounts of Vitamin D through diet alone. UV exposure is the most effective and efficient way to get Vitamin D.

The bill for parental consent passed, but I am very happy to report that the Senate committee did not approve the amendment to ban anyone under 18 from tanning in a professional salon. I feel like my voice was heard. One of the Senators made it clear to me that he agreed that a parent should be the one to make this decision. Another Senator asked many of the others testifying about how the science isn’t clear and he seemed to feel they shouldn’t legislate on something that had this many variables. He understood that salons have strict safety rules they abide by to keep clients from burning.

All in all, it has been a very interesting experience. I have never been involved in a process like this and I have learned a great deal. It has also been an eye opening experience as to what lengths the opposition will go to, in order to get their way, even if the facts don’t support their claims. It is amazing to me that there is so much blame placed on professional salons when they have not contributed to the statistics used against them.