Here's an interesting story on MSNBC:
Skin cancer rates grow among younger women. The article states, in part, "An analysis of government cancer statistics from 1973 to 2004 found that the rate of new melanoma cases in younger women had jumped 50 percent since 1980 but did not increase for younger men in that period."
Well, that is somewhat curious, isn't it? What might account for this? Because, you know, young women getting cancer in large numbers is probably the sort of thing that should interest society. According to the article, the use of tanning beds, which is much more common among women than men, is likely at least partly to blame.
According to the Skin Cancer Foundation:
Quote:Indoor tanning is big business, with tanning trade publications reporting this as a $2 billion-a-year industry in the United States. According to industry estimates, 28 million Americans are tanning indoors annually at about 25,000 tanning salons around the country. In fact, a recent study of more than 10,000 teens across the US found that tanning bed use was increasing, especially among adolescent girls.
This does not bode well for the health of the nation. In 1994, a Swedish study found that women 18-30 years old who visited tanning parlors 10 times or more a year had seven times greater incidence of melanoma than women who did not use tanning salons. In another study, people exposed to 10 full-body tanning salon sessions had a significant increase in skin repair proteins typically associated with sun damage, indicating that ultraviolet (UV) radiation from indoor tanning is as dangerous as UV from the sun. And in 2002, a study from Dartmouth Medical School found that tanning device users had 2.5 times the risk of squamous cell carcinoma and 1.5 times the risk of basal cell carcinoma . And yet, even with all this evidence, the tanning salons remain unrepentant.
The American Cancer Society has a similar position.
They report that "People 35 or younger who used the beds regularly had a melanoma risk eight-fold higher than people who never used tanning beds. Even occasional use among that age group almost tripled the chances of developing melanoma." Wow. Eight times higher. They also report that "exposure to sunbeds was found to have greatly increased since the early 1980s," the same time frame in which the increase in skin cancer among young women has been
Well, that--and the other similar research out there which a search will turn up--sounds like it is worth heeding. The risks of tanning for young people is especially high. Hmm. I wonder what the Indoor Tanning Association has to say about this?
Quote:Skin cancer has a 20- to 30-year latency period. The rates of skin cancer we are seeing today are most likely the result of bad habits from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that were based on ignorance and misinformation about sun tanning. In those days, many people still considered sunburns an inconvenient right of spring, a precursor to developing a summer tan. People believed that sunburns would “fade” into tans, and so tanners hit the beaches and blacktops with baby oil and reflectors. Severe burns were commonplace. Today we know how reckless and uninformed that approach was.
What’s more, the photobiology research community has determined that most skin cancers are related to a strong pattern of intermittent exposure to ultraviolet light in people who are genetically predisposed to skin cancer. These skin cancers are not simply the result of cumulative exposure. Once again, this suggests that heredity and a pattern of repeated sun burning are the primary factors associated with skin cancer.
The indoor tanning industry is dedicated to teaching sunburn prevention to the public. In doing so, we believe that we will help to reverse the increased incidence of skin cancer, which is largely the result of misguided behavior that occurred years before the professional tanning industry existed and was organized to teach sunburn prevention.
Well, that is reassuring! We don't need to worry about indoor tanning; the people who represent the $2 billion a year industry
tell us so! This is such a relief!
In fact, indoor tanning is so safe, even for adolescents, that the ITA is actively working to defeat measures in both Ohio and Massachusetts that would prevent minors from
paying for indoor tanning exercising their rights to tan. Thank God that the Indoor Tanning Association has society's best interests at heart!
All those scientists and researchers who posit a link between indoor tanning and skin cancer obviously never went to indoor tanning school, therefor their opinions are worthless. Besides, tanning is more of an art than a science, so they have no grounds to comment on such things. And all those doctors who advise people, especially the young, to avoid indoor tanning? Why, they're probably just angry because they're so pale and are jealous of people with nice, golden tans.
Now let's be serious again, because cancer is pretty serious. All these doctors and scientists have no stake in going after the tanning industry if it is benign. They're as close to unbiased here. They have no reason to promote or discourage tanning, except and unless it actually is a health risk. On the other hand, the ITA does have such a reason, in fact, it has about 2 billion of them. Now, who are you going to listen to?
Even more importantly, the skills used to evaluate the scientific and medical research about indoor tanning are the same as those used to evaluate the evidence about the accuracy of the polygraph. You cannot eliminate vigorous thought and debate about the polygraph without discouraging the same sort of critical thinking about indoor tanning--and any number of other important issues. Would you listen to only polluters when it comes to environmental matters? Would you listen only to gun manufacturers when it comes to discussions on gun control? Would you get all of your nutrition information from McDonald's? Yes, you might want to know what those groups have to say on relevant issues, but you wouldn't stop there; you'd get all relevant sides of the issue. Then why on earth do you think people should only get one side of the polygraph position--and that the side of the people with a vested pecuniary and professional interest in a preordained outcome?
And, please, note that
claiming to value curiosity and critical thinking is a far cry from actually doing so. If you really valued critical thinking, you would answer the tough questions that people put to you. Such as, if countermeasures never, or almost never, work, why are you so concerned about them and why don't you demonstrate your ability to detect them? Or, if, as you claim, knowledge of the PLCQ polygraph test does not impact the results, why do you go to such extreme lengths to prevent people from learning how it works? Or, why do you lie to examinees if, as you claim, the lies serve no purpose? If you really valued critical thinking, you would answer those questions. No, not every single polygrapher; no one is asking for that. It'd be enough if the answers were made available in a good resource that questioners could be referred to for answers. But such a thing doesn't exist and no polygrapher will ever answer those questions because you do not, in fact, value rationality. You value your own bank accounts and reputations and you don't want to mess with a good gig.
So please, my polygrapher friends, by all means listen to the ITA and tan away! No need for you to use sunscreen.
