For Muon: Sunshine, Sunbeds and the Scientific method

[Prof Prolapse]

I absolutely agree with muon and don't want to derail the other thread about this any longer...

It's worth bearing in mind that I'm only a bit above a layman myself mate. I hope I'm not coming across as trying to argue from a position of authority... I am but a lowly research associate which means I spend my days visit hospitals and ensuring they follow clinical trial protocols. In essence, I'm not writing the science, I'm simply interpreting a small number of studies and trying to make sure it's run correctly. Clinical site management or, "clinical trials police" would be my job... The latter was an abusive term, said in jest,by a senior UK professor, who shall remain nameless.

muon said:

A tube emits UV rays. There’s not much to regulate other than the fact it might be a stronger wattage than you anticipated?

You're right in the sense no regulations exist but this isn't a good thing.

There are many types of UV radiation (a spectrum infact) and some are more dangerous than others. The are commonly broken grouped as UVA-I, UVA-II, UVB and UVC. Again, I'm not an expert. But my understanding is that UVA-II and UVB, are more prone to causing DNA damage.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_s...

-See question 2, page 27.

So as I said before, you're right they don't regulate. They don't know how much of the radiation you put into your body is dangerous and they don't control the type of radiation they're putting into your body some of which is very dangerous to your DNA.

I don't think that reinforces your point though...

muon said:

I’ve never once burnt myself from a sunbed (although the risk is there if you overdo it, of course, as is with that big star in our solar system). Now, you probably know more than I do, but surely it’s the risk of sunburn which is the main concern?

It depends. Acutely, yes. Chronically, it's difficult to say. Back to my dice analogy from the other thread.

To get sunburn you have to roll you dice every X hours and if you get all sixes you get melanoma. As time goes by X becomes a smaller amount of time because of a number of factors, exposure, your degrading immune system and so on.

If you however do get sunburn, you are forced to roll your dice a pre-determined number of times bck to back in addition to the above. Worse still, then you will almost certainly have to reduce the amount of time further before you roll from then onwards, as that part of the skin has already been damaged.

muon said:

I see you have repeatedly said that use of sunbeds accompany a high risk of skin cancer. Where’s the scientifically proven statement that says this? I know you provided some links but I haven’t gone through them fully. Like the sun can be misused, so can sunbeds. I don’t see anything in nature where you can relate smoking to something as natural as receiving the sun’s rays. Would you also recommend someone didn’t do a job that involved working in the daylight?

Then go through them. Or read the above link, or go the cancer research UK. I've tried to provide you with links wherever I it hardly seems far I keep digging them out. Epidemiological studies are cited extensively in the first link I provide here. Alternatively the CRUK guidance is pretty clear.

I wouldn't recommend standing by a roadside and breathing in traffic fumes all day either but if you work as a road worker you don't really have a lot of a choice in the matter.

muon said:

You mention a 75% increased risk of skin cancer among sunbed users. I find this incredibly misleading! What were the trials for this? 75% increase in risk in which people? White British? And by 75% increase, what is this increased from? Because if it’s a 0.001 per 100,000 chance of getting it, a 75% increase would make it 0.00175 per 100,000. Hardly a scary thought, no? Sounds a little like number manipulation for sensationalist headlines, even if it is somewhat factual. I’m sure you understand what I’m getting at.

It's a vague headline I'll give you. Most likely, it's a desperate attempt by a charity to reduce the number of people needlessly killing themselves in the quest of aesthetics.

I've not seen the paper. It may be a review of many studies or an epidemiological study, I took this from CRUK flyer I found in the GPs office the morning we were talking so I'm quite confident its true. (Actually I think this may be part of it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22833605)

I'm not sure I get your point. They increase from baseline? Let's say for example (and ease of maths) 10 per 1000 non-sunbed users contract melanoma. The research states that if you use sunbeds this rises to 17.5 people contract melanoma. A 75% rise is very significant.

muon said:

I’ve seen it also stated that countries with the highest amount of sunshine have some of the fewest cases of other cancers. Maybe relating to vitamin d3? Maybe not. And from what I’ve read, skin cancer is a massively hereditary prone cancer which is where the majority of cases stem from.

There are many factors to consider before you jump to d3. Why you obsess with d-vitamins so much still remains a mystery to me. As I keep saying you are only a glass a milk away from all the d-vitamins you'll ever need...

I would think it's more likely because those countries with the highest amounts of sunshine are often home to those with darker skin tones perhaps? These individuals are known to be of lower risk.

There is also the fact that our recording of deaths is perhaps the most accurate in the county by some margin, I'd wager the sunniest countries in the world are a long way from this.

muon said:

Do you know much about Seasonal Adjustment Disorder or ‘winter blues’? I think I do suffer with it mildly (my mum does massively). There’s still a lot of research going on but there appears to be obvious links to vitamin d3 and sun exposure. As it’s expensive and uneconomical to travel abroad all the time, brief exposure to UV light (aka sunbeds) could help alleviate a lot of people’s symptoms. I know of people who do this anyway. I haven’t spoken to them further on it, but they continue to use them so I would hazard a guess that it helps. Remember, helps, not cures. Even if you again want to refute this, even if it’s purely a placebo effect, it is still, an effect. However, I think there is work on-going for this. It’s not something I keep tabs on however.

I'm aware of it's claims but unconvinced of it's existence.

muon said:

You appear to have your vitamins mixed up (I’m not preaching here, I’m no expert myself!). Vitamin d3 is also called Cholecalciferol. You can buy it in supplement form although it’s not common, but the best way is from UV light. There is no way that a glass of milk would sufficiently meet your requirements, certainly there would be a much larger dosage in 12 minutes on a sunbed compared to a glass of milk! That’s an incorrect statement to make. It’s worth looking up though if you’re interested. Vitamin d2 is not the same as d3. It’s something about the efficiency of how your body uses it.

The best way? Why is it the best way? Who conducted such a study? Why are the billions of people who don't take d3 in such a way perfectly fine?

Again, a glass of milk, fish, eggs, beef, cholesterol anything like that will get you a good dose of vitamin d3. For a man that claims to have a balanced diet I'm not quite sure how you're so deficient in it.

muon said:

UV exposure gives you an essential vitamin that your body does not produce. Cigarette smoke does not. I think that pretty much ends that debate. If you want to get into the abuse of sunlight/UV rays then you could very well say the same thing for eating too much red meat, drinking too much red wine, eating too many sticks of carrot. Just because you prefer smoking to lying in a tanning salon and me vice versa, shouldn’t skew our common sense on the matter.

Common sense is that they both cause cancer and should be avoided. The fact sunbeds produce vitamin d that you can get elsewhere is incidental.

What is also incidental is that studies have shown a reduced risk of Parkinson's in smokers. By your rationale this would be OK as there is a health benefit somewhere else.

I'm not interested in debating this. They both cause cause cancer, neither are necessary for good health. That's the only point here.

muon said:

With me noticing the effects of supplementing with Omega 3&6 from fish oil and the evidence linked between these essential fatty acids and alleviating joint pain, I will still continue to take them, unless of course, there’s a 0.000001 in a million chance of catching joint cancer… sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

Nah, but there's probably a 99% chance you're pissing your money away.

As I said there is very little evidence. You seem to be happy to deny the existence of evidence where it suits you and I have provided it re: sunbeds, but happy to believe it exists where it does not re: vitamin d and supplements.

I am open to new ideas but I don't see how I can be based on the level of your argument. For example there are medical problems like psoriasis for which UV treatment may be helpful.

Until you read into the matter yourself and provide references (I recommend sciencedirect, pubmed, the cochrane library, CRUK etc.) there's nothing more I can really add?

Edited by Prof Prolapse on Monday 18th February 18:56

Edited by Prof Prolapse on Monday 18th February 21:55

[MocMocaMoc]

I used the sunbeds a few times because in my early twenties I suffered terrible acne. I never once got burned, not even close...

Silly question... Is the terrible damange done only when burned? Or just general exposure?

[Prof Prolapse]

MocMocaMoc said:

I used the sunbeds a few times because in my early twenties I suffered terrible acne. I never once got burned, not even close...

Silly question... Is the terrible damange done only when burned? Or just general exposure?

I think "terrible", is really down to your perception of risk in either instance. I wouldn't panic based on the "75% increase in risk for those under 35 who use sunbeds of melanoma", after all it is an average risk and melanoma is often easily resolved, especially if caught early.

You always are getting a dose of something that is damaging (but at low doses its unlikely to be an issue). If you do get burned however you markedly increase you risk at that area. You may notice white flecks or the like, which as I understand it are physical evidence your skin has been irreparably changed.

Bear in mind I'm just a layman as well though. I'm not a clinician, I just find these things interesting to read up on when you have 10 minutes at work.