The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) reclassification of sunbeds as carcinogenic has kick-started heated debate, with arguments from both sides making front page headlines around the world. Localised incidents are becoming catalysts for change, but the sad reality is that it’s often personal tragedies that serve to highlight the need for tighter regulation of the sunbed industry.

In Australia, the tragic case of Clare Oliver brought sunbed use and skin cancer risk to the top of the national agenda and as a result we now have one of the most tightly regulated industries in the world.

Internationally, the Welsh National Assembly (UK) is pushing to introduce a blanket ban for under-18’s and an end to unsupervised salons. This drive for regulation was brought about as a result of two children requiring hospitalisation after receiving burns from unsupervised sunbed sessions.

In the US, Time Magazine has taken up the cause, “Cancer and teen tanning: Where’s the regulation” hints at the addict-like behaviour exhibited by young people who use sunbeds. Teenagers often start with a low intensity tan every now and then before moving on to more and more regular sessions and progressing through to higher intensity sunbeds, sometimes used every day or more.

A US study from the September issue of the Archives of Dermatology found that as many as 89% of salons were ignoring an FDA recommendation that users have no more than three sessions in their first week of sunbed use, while only 5% of salons restricted teenagers from tanning. The majority of respondents required parental consent for teens but considered just a phone call or written note sufficient.

The WHO reports that UV intensity from sunbeds varies greatly and is dependent on many factors. On average, 10 minutes in a sunbed is equal to 10 minutes in the Mediterranean sun at the height of summer.

Sunbeds give this level of exposure over the entire body, while natural exposure to UV is neither this intense, nor extensive. Also, depending on the sunbed, its condition and the lamps used, UVA intensity can easily equal the levels reached by a UK summer sun, or be up to 20 times stronger, while UVB intensity could be triple that of a UK summer sun.

With the time, effort and money being spent on campaigns educating people on the dangers of natural UV exposure, a little control over sunbed operators should be welcomed. It is possible to manage use by those most vulnerable without infringing on the rights and freedoms of informed and mature adults.

Above all else, achieving a healthy balance is necessary in relation to natural UV exposure. Personal variations such as skin type and location mean that each person should be educated about the ‘risk versus reward’. This will enable individuals to control and manage their exposure in order to receive the benefits that UV radiation brings while avoiding damage and minimising skin cancer risk.

References:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=291312

http://www.who.int/uv/faq/sunbeds/en/index5.html

http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/uk_news/wales/wales_politics/8280961.stm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1927282,00.html

http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/145/9/997?home

Image reference:

Related Posts:

• How does indoor tanning cause skin cancer?
• Under your skin: Sunscreen and skin cancer this summer
• The Science of Sunburn

Tags: cancer, carcinogens, clare oliver, discussion, FDA, light, melanin, melanoma, photoprotection, radiation, research, skin, skin cancer, skin conditions, sunbed, sunbeds, sunsmart, tan, tanning, tanning bed, teens, time magazine, UV, UVA, UVB

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 at 4:51 pm and is filed under Issues & Discourse. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.