Tanning debate gives off much heat

Cancer dispute pits sun vs. sunscreen vs. lamps vs. mists

While dermatologists have long been sounding the alarm to avoid ultraviolet rays from the sun and tanning beds to guard against skin cancer, at least one doctor now recommends daily UV exposure to combat vitamin D deficiency.

A study published two weeks ago in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute asserts that tanning under sunlamps can increase the risk of malignant melanoma, which kills about 7,500 Americans a year.

But doctors at a recent meeting of the National Institutes of Health also warned that millions of Americans may not get enough vitamin D, a nutrient important for strong bones.

Ultraviolet rays interact with chemicals in the skin to produce vitamin D, prompting Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University to advocate that people spend 10 minutes a day in direct sunlight without sunscreen.

Dermatologists and the sunscreen makers point out that Holick's research is partially funded by the indoor-tanning industry.

Owners of tanning salons are quick to counter that the melanoma study conducted in Scandinavia was funded by Schering-Plough, a leading manufacturer of sunscreen products.

Somewhere in the middle of the argument lies Jennifer Brandt, who owns Sun Mist, 5552 E. Speedway, a tanning salon that eschews ultraviolet lamps in favor of a contraption not unlike a carwash - it sprays the fine mist of a sugary substance that darkens the outer layer of skin in just 60 seconds.

"We're trying to teach people to stay out of the sun because UV rays cause skin damage, and that can lead to skin cancer," Brandt said. "We offer a safe alternative, and so most of the people who come in and ask about it really get that and appreciate it."

Lots of other tanning salons in town offer UV-free tanning along with their standard tanning beds, but many use what amounts to a standard-issue airbrush, which lacks the fine mist that more evenly and efficiently darkens the skin, and more than a few of those purveyors still try to sell people on the benefits of UV lamps, Brandt said.

"I've had people come in and tell me that they asked for mist tanning at places and were told that they needed to 'set' their tan in a tanning bed first, which is nonsense," she said.

Tanning due to ultraviolet light, be it from sunlight or tanning beds, damages the skin, said Dr. Steve Stratton, of the Arizona Cancer Center.

"When you're using concentrated ultraviolet light to get a tan, you're taking on the risks of treating yourself with a known carcinogen," Stratton said.

The fact that the Scandinavian study of more than 106,000 women over eight years found a 55 percent increased risk of melanoma for women who frequented tanning beds compared with women who didn't comes as no surprise to Dr. Steven Ketchel, an oncologist with Arizona Oncology Associates.

It's also no surprise to Ketchel that tanning salon owners continue to sing the praises of their sunlamps despite repeated findings that ultraviolet rays damage the skin, or that owners resist the urge to switch from lamps to UV-free mist systems, he said.

"People smoke even though they know smoking kills you, so no, it doesn't surprise me a bit," he said.

Numerous studies show that exposure to the concentrated ultraviolet rays in tanning beds can not only lead to melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, but also to basal and squamous skin cancers, two other less-lethal types, Ketchel said.

A study published last year found people who used tanning devices were 2.5 times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma and 1.5 times more likely to get basal cell carcinoma.

But Donald Smith of the Tucson-based Ultraviolet Visible and Infrared electromagnetic Radiation Institute said such studies almost always use shoddy science to blast indoor tanning and overlook the "benefits of ultraviolet light."

Smith, whose wife owns several local tanning salons, said the Scandinavian study that shows a higher risk of melanoma for indoor tanners has several flaws: There was no control for the types of "solarium" or sunlamps used, the actual sample size for women who could have been adversely affected by sunlamps was far too small, and the study had no way of separating effects from tanning beds from that of the sun in the women surveyed.

Smith said dermatologists and the sunscreen industry are the two groups leading the anti-sunlight, anti-UV crusade. "Every time John McCain has a skin cancer reduced, the dermatologists are backlogged for three months with people wanting to get in."

Sheila Mensching, who owns a tanning salon in St. Paul, Minn., is one of hundreds who have signed an online petition calling for an end to the "media bashing on indoor tanning."

Indoor tanning with ultraviolet lamps can be done safely and can actually provide fair-skinned people with "protective pigmentation" that can help keep them from burning in outdoor sun, Mensching said.

"I suppose you could justify that, but I'm not sure tanning operators or the public know how to do that," Ketchel said. "That's not what people go into tanning booths for. They go in there because they want a tan right now."

* Contact reporter Thomas Stauffer at 573-4197 or at stauffer@azstarnet.com.