Jetsun Tanning & Beauty

Home Safety Hire prices Buying Creams Spares News Beauty Collagen Salon Exercise Contact

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Epidemics happen suddenly.”In fact, melanoma incidence has been rising for nearly 80 years, primarily in older men who are still much more likely to contract this disease. Yet the anti-sun lobby has directed its screenings and marketing attention at younger women who are more likely to purchase dermatologic services (Cosmetic botox injections are the fastest growing dermatologic procedure) and cosmetic products with sunscreen. The allegation that melanoma is increasing rapidly in young people is not supported by data and has obvious confounders that the anti-sun lobby conspicuously ignores in its regular discussion. Primarily, one must consider that dermatology’s ability to detect melanoma has improved steadily in the past half century (better techniques, better equipment, more dermatologists per capita and more screenings). Because more and more young people visit dermatologists today (dermatology’s fastest growing procedures are cosmetic, with cosmetic botox injections leading the way. These procedures, of course, are marketed to younger people), it is understandable that dermatologists identify more melanomas. This also explains why – despite the allegation that more young people are getting melanoma, there is not a corresponding increase in the mortality rate from this disease in young people. In fact, in Canadian cancer registries the melanoma incidence and mortality rates are declining for women under age 50.That’s not to say people shouldn’t be vigilant about taking the right precautions. But the profit-driven anti-sun lobby has a track record of bending the numbers to overstate their case. That’s not science. That’s politics.

Sunscreen companies are enjoying record profits right now. Gilchrest apparently doesn’t read sunscreen companies’ financial statements very closely. For instance:

$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 over 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 over simplification. 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. fact.
Melanoma skin cancer occurs most often on parts of the body that are not regularly exposed to the sun. fact.
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. ie putting money in the pockets of the dermatology fraternity.
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  not sun tanning 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,”

frequenting a tanning salon is one way to control the amount of joules you recieve.This information can be accessed from stan riley at jetsun through our contact page by email or tel.

The latest lie that the money mad dermatology fraternity say is that when a keratynacyte cell is activated too often it can turn cancerous.This is untrue and is again using sunscare tactics again as this is not supported by the true xperts on this subject , ie:the worlds leading photobiologist Proff Micheal Hollick

Its time to stop pushing the multi billion pound sun screens and dermatology fraternity and tell the truth.How do these criminals sleep at night with a pandemic as large as this.

UNDERSTANDING THE LIES BEHIND THE DERMATOLOGIST AND THIER MULTIBILLION POUND COSMETICS INDUSTRY

Facultative Pigmentation    

( The Greatest Story Never Told )

Patricia E. Reykdal & Donald L. Smith
10/01/2007
For the past three decades, members of the dermatology community have perpetuated the lie that facultative pigmentation, better known by the public as a tan, provides only limited protection against skin damage regardless of the fact that they know, or reasonably should know, that the statement is not—and never has been—true.

This article contains the facts about the role that our normal and natural constitutive pigmentation (i.e., genetically-determined skin color) and facultative pigmentation (i.e., acquired/adaptive level of tan) plays in increasing our tolerance to ultraviolet radiation (TUVR) and decreasing our sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation (SUVR).

Salons need to do their part to educate and inform the public and media about the incontrovertible benefits of maintaining a year-round tan because we must reclaim our birthright, i.e., that facultative pigmentation (a tan) provides significant protection against UVR-induced damage to the skin. Getting this important story out to the public should be our first priority as an industry.

The following are important terms that must be defined in order to understand this topic’s importance.

1. Overexposure to ultraviolet radiation (OUVR) means the client has been exposed to a dose/exposure time of UVR more than they can tolerate without damaging their skin.

2. Underexposure to ultraviolet radiation (UUVR) means the client has been exposed to a dose/exposure time less than what is required to stimulate vitamin D and maintain the desired tan.

3. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation (EUVR) means the individual has been exposed to an optimal dose of UVR.

4. Tolerance to ultraviolet radiation (TUVR) is the terminology used to explain the fact that an individual with darker natural skin color and/or a darker level of tan can tolerate a larger UVR dose (or a longer exposure time) without damaging their skin. A higher TUVR level means there is a lower probability of skin damage, and a lower TUVR level means there is a higher probability of skin damage.

Note: Skin type 1 individuals cannot develop facultative pigmentation and always will have a TUVR value of 1.0. A skin subtype 2A with no tan has the same TUVR value as a skin type 1, science & technology but the difference is that the skin subtype 2A can develop a tan and increase TUVR.

5. Sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation (SUVR) is the terminology used to define the probability of suffering UVR-induced skin damage. A larger SUVR percentage means there is a higher probability of skin damage; a smaller SUVR percentage means the individual has a lower probability of damaging their skin when overexposed to UVR.

Note: A skin type 1 individual cannot develop facultative pigmentation and always will have a SUVR value of 100 percent. A skin subtype 2A with no tan has the same SUVR value as does a skin type 1, but the difference is that the skin subtype 2A can develop a tan and thereby reduce their SUVR.

There is a reciprocal relationship between TUVR and SUVR, which means they should be considered as being two sides of the same coin. When an individual’s TUVR increases, their SUVR decreases; when their SUVR increases, their TUVR decreases.

6. Biological equivalent. An increase in TUVR resulting in a decrease in SUVR is the biological equivalent of reducing the cumulative annual UVR dose by the same percentage as the SUVR is reduced. This means that an increase in TUVR resulting in a 50-percent decrease in SUVR has the same ability to reduce skin damage as if the cumulative annual UVR dose was cut in half.

7. Factors affecting TUVR/SUVR:

A.Constitutive pigmentation. This form of “normal and natural” photo-protection comes from our natural skin color and is considered to be permanent because our skin type/subtype doesn’t change over our lifetime. Individuals with higher skin types/subtypes have a darker genetically-determined natural skin color and therefore have an increased TUVR and a decreased SUVR. Individuals with lower skin types/subtypes have a lighter geneticallydetermined natural skin color and therefore have a lower TUVR and a higher SUVR.

B. Facultative pigmentation. This form of “normal and natural” photo-protection is better known as an acquired/ adaptive “tan” and has a temporary effect on TUVR/ SUVR. As the tan darkens, TUVR is increased and SUVR is decreased; conversely, as the tan lightens, TUVR is decreased and SUVR is increased.

C. Photosensitizing substances. Various medications, foods, soaps, cosmetics and lotions temporarily can increase an individual’s SUVR and decrease TUVR.

D. Sunscreens with UVB filters. A sunscreen with a UVB filter applied to the surface of the skin temporarily and artificially increases TUVR and decreases SUVR by absorbing the erythemal (sunburning) wavelengths.

Note: Sunscreens with UVA filters absorb the longer wavelengths of UVR that induce facultative pigmentation (a tan) and should be avoided because a) by preventing the development of a tan they make the individual dependent upon using them forever, which is good for the sunscreen manufacturer but bad for the person; and b) these longer wavelengths are the ones that stimulate our immune system, which means that use of a sunscreen with a UVA filter can weaken our immune defense capability.



TUVR/SUVR By Skintype/ Subtype And Level Of Tan

The three graphs on the next page reveal how photo-protective properties provided by our skin type/subtype and level of tan work synergistically to increase our tolerance to UVR and decrease our sensitivity to UVR.

The top graph shows the TUVR (blue line) and SUVR (red line) for a person with no tan; the middle graph for a person with a medium tan; and the bottom graph for a person with a maximum tan. Note: We will use subtype 3B—the most common skin type/subtype in the United States and where the two lines cross—as our primary example for each of the three graphs.

The top graph shows that our example skin subtype 3B with no tan has a 2.5 TUVR, i.e., their genetically-determined skin color makes it possible to tolerate a dose/exposure time 2.5 times greater than a subtype 2A (with no tan) and their SUVR is reduced to 40 percent—a reduction of 60 percent. A subtype 2A with no tan has a 1.0 TUVR and a SUVR of 100 percent; a skin type 5 has a 5.0 TUVR and a SUVR of 20 percent.

The middle graph shows that our example skin subtype 3B with a medium tan has a 5.0 TUVR, which means they can tolerate a dose/exposure time 5.0 times more than a skin subtype 2A (with no tan) and the SUVR is reduced to 20 percent—a reduction of 80 percent. A skin subtype 2A with a medium tan has a 2.0 TUVR and a SUVR of 50 percent while a skin type 5 has a 10.0 TUVR and a SUVR of 10 percent.

The bottom graph shows that our example skin subtype 3B with a maximum tan has a 10.0 TUVR, which means they can tolerate a dose/exposure time 10.0 times more than a skin subtype 2A (with no tan) and the SUVR is reduced to 10 percent, a reduction of 90 percent. A skin subtype 2A with a maximum tan has a 4.0 TUVR and a SUVR of 25 percent while a skin type 5 has a 20.0 TUVR and a SUVR of 5 percent.

Skin type 1 individuals cannot develop facultative pigmentation and always will have a TUVR value of 1.0. A skin subtype 2A with no tan has the same TUVR value as a skin type 1, but the difference is that the skin subtype 2A can develop a tan and increase TUVR.



TUVR/SUVR And Cumulative Annual UVR Dose Reduction

The two graphs on page 48 show how constitutive and facultative pigmentation work synergistically to reduce cumulative annual UVR dose (J/m^2) to a lower biological equivalent cumulative annual UVR dose. We will compare indoor workers and outdoor workers with a) no tan; b) a medium tan; and c) a maximum tan by skin type/subtype. An increase in TUVR resulting in a decrease in SUVR significantly reduces the biological equivalent cumulative annual UVR dose (J/m^2).

The top graph compares an indoor worker who takes a two-week vacation to a sunny climate and who patronizes an indoor tanning salon 100 times during the year (in order to maintain their tan) for an individual with no tan; a medium tan; and a maximum tan. A subtype 2A individual with no tan will be exposed to a cumulative total of 60,000 J/m^2; the same individual with a medium tan will reduce the net effect of that amount to the biological equivalent of 30,000 J/m^2; and the same individual who maintains a maximum tan level during the year reduces their exposure to the biological equivalent of 15,000 J/m^2.

Our example subtype 3B with no tan accumulates 24,000 J/m^2; 12,000 J/m^2 with a medium tan; and 6,000 J/m^2 if they maintain a maximum tan level. A skin type 5 will have 12,000 J/m^2 with no tan; 6.000 J/m^2 with a medium tan; and 3,000 J/m^2 if they maintain a maximum tan level.

The bottom graph compares an outdoor worker who takes a two-week vacation to a sunny climate and who patronizes an indoor tanning salon 100 times during the year (in order to maintain their tan) for an individual with no tan; a medium tan; and a maximum tan. A subtype 2A individual with no tan (i.e., who is “unprotected”) will be exposed to 120,000 J/m^2; the same individual with a medium tan will reduce the net effect of that amount to the biological equivalent of 60,000 J/m^2; and the same individual who maintains a maximum tan level during the year reduces the net effect of this exposure to the biological equivalent of 30,000 J/m^2. A subtype 3B with no tan accumulates 48,000 J/m^2; 24,000 J/m^2 with a medium tan; and 12,000 J/m^2 if they maintain a maximum tan level. A skin type 5 will accumulate 24,000 J/m^2 with no tan; 12.000 J/m^2 with a medium tan; and 6,000 J/m^2 if they maintain a maximum tan level.

The bottom line is that an individual who augments the photo-protection provided by their genetically-determined skin color by maintaining a tan year-round significantly reduces their biologically equivalent cumulative annual UVR dose (J/m^2).

A subtype 3B indoor worker who maintains a medium tan year-round lowers their cumulative annual UVR dose to the biological equivalent of 12,000 J/m^2, which is less than half of what they normally would experience during an “unprotected” (i.e., without a tan) two-week vacation in a sunny area. A subtype 3B outdoor worker who maintains a maximum tan year-round also will lower their cumulative annual UVR dose to the biological equivalent of 12,000 J/m^2.

Not Everyone Is A Skin Type 1

The dermatology community and sunscreen industry knows, or reasonably should know, that only skin type 1 individuals (and subtype 2A individuals with no tan) accumulate the maximum cumulative annual dose of UVR and, therefore, must rely upon the use of a sunscreen for protection. All other skin type/subtypes reduce their biologically equivalent cumulative annual UVR exposure in direct proportion to their genetically-determined skin color and all skin type/subtypes—except for skin type 1s—also reduce their biologically equivalent annual UVR exposure in direct proportion to the level of acquired/adaptive tan they maintain year-round.

Therefore, the claim by the dermatology community that facultative pigmentation (an acquired/adaptive tan) provides only minimal protection from UVR-induced skin damage is shown to be yet another in a long series of their self-serving lies made for the express purpose of financially damaging the indoor tanning industry. Unfortunately, their lies also have the unintended consequence of damaging the health and welfare of the American public.

Maintaining A Year-Round Tan Is A“Win-Win” Proposition

The bottom line is that maintaining facultative pigmentation (an acquired/ adaptive tan) year-round to augment the protection provided by our genetically-determined skin color (constitutive pigmentation) helps reduce our biologically equivalent cumulative annual UVR dose and does so in direct proportion to the level of tan that is maintained year-round.

Individuals who maintain a medium or maximum year-round tan will have a much higher likelihood of maintaining an optimal level of vitamin D, i.e., 120-150 nmol/L, which should be thought of as a “free bonus”, that is as valuable as the protection from UVR-induced skin damage. Together, these two benefits have the potential to dramatically improve our health and well-being; a “win-win” proposition.

A New Photo-Protection Paradigm Will Benefit The American Public

It is time for everyone except skin type 1s to realize that depending upon sunscreen as their first line of defense against UVR-induced skin damage a) doesn’t pass the commonsense test; b) doesn’t work primarily because most people only use less than half of the dose of sunscreen required to get the protection promised by the label; and c) only benefits the large pharmaceutical companies that market sunscreens. A new photo-protection paradigm to protect against UVR-induced skin damage should be as follows:

1. Our first line of defense should be our constitutive pigmentation, i.e., our genetically-determined skin color.

2. Our second line of defense should be our facultative pigmentation, i.e., an acquired/adaptive tan.

3. Our third line of defense should be the use of an SPF 4-8 sunscreen when we are exposed to UVR for long periods of time. Note: Use of a sunscreen with SPF 15 or higher prevents the stimulation of vitamin D and should be avoided because there is no need for an SPF higher than 4-8.

A Request To Regulators And Politicians

We request that unless and until the dermatology community provides facts to refute this article, they cease and desist with any and all attempts to introduce legislation and/or regulations restricting the rights of any citizen—including teenagers—to patronize an indoor tanning salon for the purpose of developing photo-protective facultative pigmentation.

Restrictive legislation/regulations, as shown by the data in this article, are counterproductive if the goal is to reduce the potential for skin damage. In fact, legislation and regulations that discourage the American public from maintaining photo-protective facultative pigmentation (an acquired/adaptive tan) year-round will have the “unintended consequence” of increasing UVR-induced skin damage in the citizens these legislators are responsible for protecting.

Salons Need To Take Action

Salons can help by making sure that everyone in their market area—clients, potential clients, the media, regulators and elected officials—understand that a) the benefits of sensible, moderate and responsible UVR exposure significantly outweigh the minimal and manageable risks involved; b) maintaining facultative pigmentation (an acquired/adaptive tan) year-round to augment the photo-protection afforded by their genetically-determined skin color significantly reduces their biologically equivalent cumulative annual UVR dose and reduces the potential for damage to their skin; and c) a year-round tanning regimen that makes it possible to maintain a medium or maximum tan level will result in the “free bonus” of helping to maintain an optimal (120-150 nmol/L)  ( 60 ngml )  level of vitamin D.

It is time for the truth about the benefits of maintaining facultative pigmentation (a “tan”) year-round, i.e., the “greatest story never told” to be told.

Patricia E. Reykdal owns and operates four tanning salons in Tucson, Ariz. Her husband, Donald L. Smith, is director of research of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute. Together, they have written more than 250 articles promoting sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to ultraviolet radiation. You can e-mail comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com.