Capitalizing on the controversy around vitamin D and the sun are tanning-bed salons and a lobbying group supporting the billion-dollar tanning-bed industry. Now they feel they have a legitimate reason to encourage you to spend money absorbing UV radiation from their machines, or at least that’s the claim they proudly promote. Yet according to the FDA, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), the American Academy of Dermatology, the Skin Cancer Foundation, and many other medical and regulatory sources worldwide, suntanning machines are nothing more than skin cancer machines, and should be made illegal. The research for this is startling.
Suntanning machines radiate the most damaging effects of the sun only inches away from your body, and, worse, they are available day after day, month after month, in areas of the country where you would not normally see the sun on a daily basis. In addition, they allow exposure of body parts that are usually covered. They pose the same serious risk of skin cancer that unprotected exposure to the sun allows, only more so—by intensifying the actual amount of UVA and/or UVB radiation the skin receives. (Sources: Dermatological Surgery, April 2008, 460-474; International Journal of Dermatology, December 2007, pages 1253-1257; Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, December 2005, pages 1038-1044; and Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, May 2001, pages 775-780.)
Many studies have found that people who used tanning beds have significantly higher rates of melanoma than those who don’t (Sources: British Journal of Dermatology, July 2007, pages 215-216, and Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, March 2005, pages 562-566). But there is also research that tanning beds do not pose an increased risk of melanoma (Source: Cancer Causes and Control, September 2008, pages 659-669). Whether or not there is an increased risk of melanoma, there is a 100% increase in other problems that are dire for the health and appearance of your skin.
As the battle ensues over whether or not tanning beds help reduce vitamin D deficiency or increase the risk of melanoma, it leaves the consumer confused and frustrated with what they should do. It is important to realize that most experts worldwide believe tanning beds should be made illegal. In essence, the key point in the conflicting information is the issue of melanoma. Tanning beds may be a source of vitamin D, but so are vitamin D supplements and those are far cheaper and don’t pose a risk of skin cancer. What often gets left out of the debate is the overwhelming information and research about other types of substantial damage to skin that take place when men and women use tanning machines. Whether it’s in terms of wrinkles, DNA mutations, thinning skin, immune suppression, or other types of skin cancers (squamous and basal cell), the evidence of damage is undeniable. (Sources: British Journal of Dermatology, June 2008, pages 128-133; Photochemistry and Photobiology Science, May 2006, pages 160-164; Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, August 2003, pages 371-375; Journal of the National Cancer Institute, February 2002, page 155; and the World Health Organization publication Tanning Sunbeds, Risk and Guidance; 2003.)
Indoor tanning salons have grown significantly in popularity during recent years and the number of people using them has grown as well. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. Despite the potential dangers of these devices, federal regulations have struggled to place minimal restrictions on the labeling of indoor tanning lamps. Indoor tanning salons work vigorously to dispel notions of any link to skin cancer, often falsely promoting various health benefits of indoor tanning. The first lawsuit for injuries resulting from indoor tanning was recently filed against an indoor tanning salon, and other such litigation is poised to follow. Much like the court cases that have found liability in the context of cigarettes, cases like this, which identify similarities between the indoor tanning and cigarette industries, can be one way to make a statement regulatory boards can’t (or won’t) do (Source: Michigan Law Review, November 2008, pages 365-390).