Jetsun Tanning & Beauty                                               

   

   
  CALCULATE YOUR VITAMIN D    
 

Here at Jetsun tanning and beauty we have now invested in a new specially calibrated meter that we can measure the output of any particular sunbed and use this information with a working spreadsheet of data which we input from a clients details. This will allow us to specify how many minutes you would need to spend on a specific sunbed to synthesise any amount of vitamin Die 1,000 iu.This would be able to prevent against all cancers and chronic diseases by upto 77%.It is now reported by top scientist say that regular tanners are more protected against chronic diseases than none tanners especially all the cancers when used in conjunction with the tsa and also the guidance of our new equipment meter. All information on this site on this subject comes from the worlds top scientist on this research and not I repeat not from the criminal fraternity known as the dermatology crusaders to promote the multi billion pound creams industry and are backing there own greedy pockets and not the serious pandemic of vitamin D deffienciency that is killing over one billion people world wide each year through the associated diseases. The truth is growing in strength and will eventually breakthrough this unbalanced untruths that these wannabe famous dermatologist fraternity is telling. One of the latest dermatology lies is that when a melanacyte is triggered too often it can cause cancer. This is exactly the opposite to what really happens. There is no correlation between a cell getting a scrambled message and causing cancer. This incidence of scrambled information to a cell is purely a correlation of coincidence and these criminals know this but are intent in pushing the multi billion pound cosmetics industry.Why are these dermatologist on celebrity tv progammes?I wonder if it might be to push the sales of cosmetic creams and spf factors? The true scientific research proffesors has no interest in the cosmetic industry only in the prevention and cure of diseases.use our contact page to tel for appointments asking for stan or email.

Sunscreen companies are enjoying record profits right now.

$9 billion pharmaceutical giant Schering-Plough (Coppertone) reported sun-care related sales of $204 million in 2005, up 16 percent from 2004 and up 40 percent from 2003, making the division one of Schering-Plough’s best performers by percentage growth.
$50 billion Johnson & Johnson’s consumer products unit – which markets sun care products like Neutrogena and Aveeno, is one of the pharmaceutical giant’s most profitable divisions, with increased sales of $2.36 billion in the first quarter of 2006 alone. Neutrogena’s marketing uses some of the most aggressive sun-scare tactics of any sunscreen company.
Gilchrest and her peers apparently have an antiquated definition of what a sunscreen company is. It isn’t just a beach product anymore. Most women’s cosmetics today include sunscreen in their products – marketing usage and need of the product based on over-hyping fear of the sun. Because of this, most women wear sunscreen 365 days a year in any climate – even when sunburn isn’t a possibility – because the American Academy of Dermatology and sunscreen manufacturers have scared them into over-use of sunscreen. “Sun scare” – teaching total fear of the sun instead of sunburn prevention – is a huge multibillion-dollar business run by even larger multibillion-dollar cosmeceutical corporations.

Tanning is a Natural Body Process – It is Not Damage

Tanning is your body’s natural protection against sunburn — it is what your body is designed to do. Many have referred to this process as “damage” to your skin, but calling a tan “damage” is a dangerous oversimplification. Here is why:

  • Calling a tan damage to your skin is like calling exercise damage to your muscles. Consider, when one exercises you are actually tearing tiny muscle fibers in your body. On the surface, examined at the micro-level, that could be called “damage.” But that damage on the micro-level is your body’s natural way on the macro-level of building stronger muscle tissue. So to call exercise “damaging” to muscles would be terribly deceiving. The same can be said of sun exposure: Your body is designed to repair any damage to the skin caused by ultraviolet light exposure. Developing a tan is its natural way to protect against the dangers of sunburn and further exposure.
  • Saying that any ultraviolet light exposure causes skin damage is a dangerous oversimplification. It would be like saying that since water causes drowning, humans should avoid all water. Yes, water causes drowning, but our bodies also need water; we would die without it. Similarly, we need sun exposure; we would die without it.

It is the professional indoor tanning industry’s position that sunburn prevention is a more effective message than sun avoidance, which ultimately encourages abuse. It is a responsible, honest approach to the issue.

But What About Skin Cancer?

There arguably is more misinformation about skin cancer than any other form of cancer, and most of it involves distorting the nature of skin cancer’s complex relationship with sun exposure. Consider:

  • Melanoma skin cancer is most common in people who work indoors – not in those who work outdoors.
  • Melanoma skin cancer occurs most often on parts of the body that are not regularly exposed to the sun.
  • 18 of 22 studies examining melanoma and indoor tanning have shown no statistically significant association, including the most recent and largest study, which showed no connection at all. The four older studies that alleged a connection did not adequately control for important confounding variables such as the subjects’ outdoor exposure to sunlight, childhood sunburns, type of tanning equipment utilized (many of which were unsupervised home units) and duration and quantity of exposures.
  • Melanoma mortality rates in the United States are not rising among young women, but are increasing dramatically among older men, according to National Cancer Institute data. (In Canada, melanoma rates for women under 50 have actually declined in the past 20 years). Yet the majority of the marketing message about this disease is directed at young women, who are the highest consumers of dermatological services.
  • The photobiology research community has determined that most skin cancers are most likely related to a strong pattern of burning and intermittent sun exposure in those people who are genetically predisposed to skin cancer and not simply to cumulative exposure. That suggests that a pattern of repeated sunburning is what we need to prevent. And that kind of prevention is exactly what the indoor tanning industry is doing effectively.
  • Skin cancer generally has a 20- to 30-year latency period. The rates of skin cancer we are seeing today in older individuals mostly are a function of the ignorant misbehavior of the 1970s and early 1980s. Recall: Society used to view sunburns as an inconvenient right of spring, or as a “precursor” to developing a summer tan. Severe burns were commonplace. Today we know how reckless that approach was, and the incidence rates of skin cancer today in those over 50 years of age reflect that ignorance.

The indoor tanning industry believes that our role in teaching sunburn prevention will help to reverse the increases that largely are a result of misbehavior that took place years ago before the professional tanning industry existed and before we were organized to teach sunburn prevention.

How Do You Define Moderate Tanning?

The term “moderate tanning” means something different for every different individual, and that is an important point. The bottom line is what we call “The Golden Rule of Smart Tanning” – Don’t EVER sunburn. A fair-skinned, red-headed, green-eyed person may not have the ability to develop a tan without sunburning. This person should not attempt to tan then. On the other hand, most of us have the ability to develop a tan, and the majority of us tan very easily. Moderation, in our view, means avoiding sunburn at all costs. Going about that agenda will mean something different to every different person.

What About Teenage Tanning?

In the past few years the dermatology industry’s lobbyists have argued that teenagers should be totally prohibited from tanning in salons despite having no solid evidence that tanning in a non-burning fashion results in any significant risk. In fact, such prohibitions would likely do more harm than good. Consider:

  1. Studies have shown that teens who tan in salons are less likely to sunburn outdoors compared to non-tanners.
  2. 83 percent of teenagers who tan indoors prior to taking sunny vacations report that their indoor tan, combined with the proper use of sunscreen, helped them to prevent sunburn.
  3. Further, 72 percent of teenagers who currently tan indoors say they would simply tan more aggressively outdoors or purchase home tanning units – both of which are more likely to produce sunburns – if they were unable to utilize indoor tanning salons. If teenagers are unable to tan in salons, sunburn incidence actually will increase, and it is likely that total UV exposure in this age group will increase. This would be hurting people, not helping them.
  4. There is no data to suggest that tanning is more dangerous for any specific age group. Photobiology suggests that burning (not tanning) at an early age could increase risk later in life. As we just discussed, it appears that indoor tanners sunburn less than non-tanners, including teen-agers who tan outdoors.
  5. Indoor tanning facilities today are at the forefront in teaching teenagers outdoor sunburn prevention, including the proper use of sunscreens to prevent sunburn outdoors. If teenagers are denied access to indoor tanning, sunburn incidence will increase.

The tanning industry supports existing laws requiring parental consent for minors who wish to tan in salons, and would support constructive efforts to bolster enforcement of this standard.

Are All Dermatologists Against Indoor Tanning?

While most of the dermatology profession has an inexplicably myopic view about tanning, some enlightened dermatologists have broken ranks with their peers in recent years, urging their profession to re-think its one-sided dogma about sun exposure. Two of the most recent:

  • Research dermatologist Dr. Sam Shuster, professor emeritus to the Department of Dermatology at Newcastle University in northern England, challenged his peers to quantify the alleged increase in skin cancer incidence, which is not based on actual numbers but only estimates. In the book, “Panic Nation: Unpicking the Myths We’re Told About Food and Health” Shuster calls his peers to acknowledge that a tan is the body’s natural protection against sunburn – a reality that has been all but stampeded under the establishment’s rhetoric. “Unfortunately our attitude to sun and ultra-violet (UV) light is subject to much perverse and dubious technical ‘advice’, which society has passively accepted without questioning its provenance,” Shuster writes.
  • Boston University Professor Dr. Michael Holick – the scientist who was involved in the discovery of the active form of vitamin D in the early 1970s – wrote the book “The UV Advantage” in 2004, urging people to embrace moderate exposure to ultraviolet light as the body’s natural way to produce Vitamin D. Holick is one of the world’s leading authorities on vitamin D production. “Since some exposure to sunlight is beneficial to your health, it is reasonable that if you wish to be exposed to sunlight, that you can do so with relative safety if you make sure that you do not receive a sunburn,” Holick says.
  • Many rank-and-file dermatologists have more moderate views about sensible sun exposure, but have been intimidated by their peers not to discuss these views publicly. Indeed, upon publishing “The UV Advantage” in 2004, Holick was forced to resign his post at Boston University as a professor of dermatology, with the chair of that department calling his work “schlock science.” In spite of such rhetoric, in the two years since publishing his book, most of Holick’s positions have become mainstream thinking.


 

UV Exposure Is Good For What Ails You

by Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith
10/16/2009
In “The Truth About The Recent IARC Report,” we said that a deficient/insufficient blood level of vitamin D (25-OH-D) plays a critical role in the development of more than 60 diseases and medical conditions. But why is vitamin D so critical for our health and wellbeing? Because every cell and organ in the human body requires an optimal level of vitamin D to function normally.

Let’s play the “What If” game for a moment: What if one of the large pharmaceutical companies announced that they had developed a new wonder drug that promised to reduce the incidence and mortality of more than 60 diseases and conditions? Needless to say, the stock price of the company would skyrocket and they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the demand for this product.

But, what if the company announced that, for every 500 deaths prevented by this new product, one person might die prematurely each year because of the adverse side effects of the product? Most likely, people would conclude that a benefit-to-risk ratio of 500 to 1 indicates the benefits exceed the risks.

And what if there was an alternative to the new drug that promised the same benefits but it was known to have toxicity problems if ingested in high doses and there had never been a long-term prospective study proving that the alternative is as good as the new drug? It’s quite possible that those two factors might influence people to opt for the wonder drug rather than the alternative.

OK, game over. Back to vitamin d—also known as ...

Mother Nature’s Wonder Drug

Individuals who maintain an optimal health blood level of vitamin D significantly reduce their risk of developing many diseases and conditions. And, recent studies show that individuals with the highest vitamin D blood levels dramatically reduce their risk of dying from any cause. We have long recommended maintaining a vitamin D blood level of 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) even when most vitamin D experts were only recommending 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL). Although we are pleased most experts are currently recommending our target level, new evidence leads us to believe that 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) should really be the minimum level for optimal health and that the new target level should be 175 – 200 nmol/L (70 – 80 ng/mL). (And, we predict that new target level will be universally adopted within the next five years.)

So, what is the average vitamin D level? A recent study indicates that the average vitamin D (25-OH-D) blood level worldwide is 54 nmol/L (21.5 ng/mL). Another study showed that―in sunlight-drenched southern Arizona―the average level was only 10 nmol/L higher at 64 nmol/L (25.6 ng/mL). Clearly, there is a huge gap between the level required for optimal health and the average level found around the world, even for individuals who live in sunlight-rich environments year-round.

What does the average vitamin D level tell us? The huge gap between the actual and recommended blood level of vitamin D tells us three things. First, it tells us that the recommendation for five to 15 minutes of sunlight exposure to your face and hands two or three times per week is woefully inadequate. Second, it tells us that either people are not taking daily vitamin D supplements or they are not taking a supplement with a dose high enough to raise their vitamin D to the optimal health level. Third, it tells us that the recommendation by the dermatology community to avoid UVR exposure and to slather on sunscreen every day of the year has taken a toll on the health of the public.

How can we get enough vitamin D? You cannot get enough vitamin D from the food you eat or the vitamin D-fortified milk you drink to reach an optimal health level. You must obtain the equivalent of approximately 3,000 IUs each day just to break even with the daily demand for vitamin D and 80 percent of this amount (2,400 IUs) must come from UVR stimulation. Therefore, the question that must be answered about UVR-induced vitamin D is not whether there is a need for vitamin D stimulated by UVR exposure but how to get the required UVR exposure. Also, it is very important to remember that there has never been a reported incidence of vitamin D toxicity from UVR stimulation—but there is a very real danger of toxicity if supplements are used. Here are the two options for UVR exposure:

  • Uncontrolled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Although we can stimulate production of vitamin D through exposure to sunlight, this source is uncontrolled. By that, we mean there is no way for the average person to accurately determine a “safe” level of sunlight exposure to accomplish vitamin D synthesis without burning. In addition, sunlight is an unreliable source of vitamin D-effective energy because it varies by time of day, season of the year, weather conditions and geography. Similarly, there have been numerous studies indicating that vitamin D levels rise during the spring and summer, and decrease during the fall and winter—therefore, sunlight cannot be depended upon to stimulate an optimal health level of vitamin D year-round.

Controlled tanning in a studio

  • Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Professional indoor tanning salons utilize equipment in which the maximum allowable dose of UVR that can be delivered during a tanning session is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And, the conservative FDA-recommended exposure schedule has a built-in safety margin of 50 percent to help prevent overexposure. In addition, the skin type/subtype of each individual is measured prior to allowing the person to tan, so as to determine the initial session time that will avoid overexposure. The bottom line is that all critical variables are carefully controlled by a professional indoor tanning salon—that is why salons are the only year-round public source of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure.

Where’s All the UVR and Vitamin D Research?

One of the questions that scientists conducting studies utilizing vitamin D supplements don’t want to ask is: What if, five to 10 years down the road, we find out that supplemental vitamin D doesn’t have the biological potency that UVR-induced vitamin D offers? Think about it—if the premise of these types of studies is that vitamin D has the ability to prevent a variety of diseases and conditions, wouldn’t it make sense to determine whether or not supplemental-induced vitamin D is as good as UVR-induced vitamin D?

We think so—which is why we asked a leading vitamin D scientist why he wasn’t including UVR-induced vitamin D in his studies at a recent meeting we attended. The answer was that, although such research would be a great idea, he “didn’t need the grief” that would come from dermatologists if he included UVR exposure in the protocol.

So there you have it. One vested-interest group―dermatologists―is hindering research comparing whether supplement-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as UVR-induced vitamin D.

Here’s what is needed ASAP: an answer to the critical question of whether increasing the average vitamin D blood level of the American public to at least 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) via supplemental-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as does reaching this level via UVR-induced vitamin D. Once that question has been answered, the required dose of the vitamin D supplement and/or the required time/frequency for UVR exposure can be determined.

A simple benefit versus risk ratio supports our position. Our data shows that 500 to 1,000 individuals die prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of underexposure to UVR for every one individual who dies prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of overexposure to UVR. And you don’t have to just take our word for it. A recent study, titled “Estimating the Global Disease Burden Due to Ultraviolet Radiation,” stated that the relative risk of underexposure to UVR was 3,000 times greater than the relative risk of overexposure to UVR. This new data indicates that our 500 – 1,000 to 1 ratio between the risks of underexposure and overexposure to UVR is actually too conservative—a 2,000 – 3,000 to 1 benefit versus risk ratio is more realistic.

What We Believe

Based on our decade-long, comprehensive study of vitamin D, we conclude that a combination of supplements and routine, controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is the best way to maintain an optimal-health blood level of vitamin D year-round.

If every individual would take a 1,000 – 2,000 IU supplement each day and tan for at least 10 minutes per session (after building up a level of photoprotective facultative pigmentation, or tan, gradually) once or twice each week, the incidence of vitamin D insufficiency would be significantly reduced. In addition, this would dramatically improve the health status of millions of people. (Of course, individuals with darker skin or those who are older will require both a higher supplemental dose and more frequent tanning sessions in order to maintain an optimal health vitamin D level year-round.)

The bottom line is: Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is good for what ails you.

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.