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:
-
Studies have shown that teens
who tan in salons are less
likely to sunburn outdoors
compared to non-tanners.
- 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.
-
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.
- 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.
- 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.
|
|