|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Monday, August 14, 2006
Tanning, like a cigarette for your whole body
At least that's what I've always said. now Dermatologists are starting to say it too and the indoor tanning lobby is starting to sound exactly like the cigarette lobby 40 years ago demanding proof beyond all doubt before any kind of precaution is taken.
There must be a name for this flaw in logic that you always encounter with libertarians, global warming deniers, creationists etc., that a preponderance of evidence isn't enough, you need absolute and total proof of some problem before anything should be done (and even then they still deny it because they don't want to believe in science). Complete and total understanding from the bottom to the top of any issue before a precautions can be taken or a decision can be made. The sad thing is that it is rare for humans to completely understand anything, let alone a complex disease process like melanoma or any cancer (it took 50 years to find definitive proof of the mechanism for cigarettes causing cancer after all). If we had this standard of evidence for any action we'd be locked in indecision all the time. To me it's obvious, UV radiation, even the longer wavelength stuff used in these beds is still ionizing radiation. Even if less harmful, intense, prolonged exposure will increase your risk, just maybe not as fast as sunlight. It's pretty obvious, and with the increases in melanoma among young women there is more than correlation, there's a good explanation. It's also disturbing to see how much faster melanoma asserts itself, compared to cigarette use tanning seems much more dangerous, as these cancers are popping up in people under 30. Probably because your exposure to UV in total begins from birth. What do the other scientists think? Time to condemn tanning beds or not? |
4 Comments:
I think comparing cigarettes and tanning beds are totally ignorant. First of all I have never heard of getting sick from a second hand tan. Second of all, there has NEVER been a proven case of skin cancer from a tanning bed. We cannot say the same about tobacco and smoking can we? Third, I have never heard of a doctor prescribing smoking to anyone. They prescribe tanning all of the time. Now is it obvious how stupid this comment looks.
12:19 AM, August 15, 2006
Wow, you just totally didn't read the post and gave an argument full of some interesting straw men and irrelevent points.
I never said anything about second-hand tanning for instance. I didn't ascribe every single property of cigarettes to tanning, you may as well say I'm wrong to make the comparison because tanning beds aren't also made from a dried leaf.
Second, it took many decades of research to show the exact cause of carcinogenicity from cigarettes, even though the very obvious correlation was known long before that, which was the whole damn point of the post. That absolute proof takes a damn long time, and powerful correlative evidence, the knowledge that UV from the sun causes melanoma, and the basic science understanding of how UV light causes thymidine dimerization in DNA requiring excision repair enzymes to correct the damage would suggest that caution should be taken.
Last, doctors actually did at one time recommend cigarettes for anxiety, and advertisements would use images of doctors smoking or suggesting using it to relax. Ever seen general hospital from the 50-60s? Or any movie before color with doctors smoking over their patients? Or telling their patients to relax and have a cigarette? And your statement that doctors prescribe tanning all the time is bullshit. Are you talking about the recommendation that people get at least 15 minutes of sun exposure (just exposure of the arms is enough) for proper vitamin D synthesis (usually only a problem with shut ins and elderly in nursing homes), or are you talking about phototherapy for hyperbilirubinemia in infants? Because those are the only two instances I've ever heard of doctors recommending sun exposure, and those are pretty specialized cases.
It's kind of hysterical, you more or less proved my point that the same tired arguments are dragged out in both cases (and that you're probably too young to know anything about the history of marketing cigarettes). I think I'm convinced, tanning salons should probably be banned for minors and advertisement for them should probably include warnings about melanoma.
12:58 AM, August 15, 2006
Any thoughts about the possibility that the comment from "tanning lotion" was generated by an industry stooge?
It's the weird combination of poor grammar and yet perfectly structured bullet points that makes me think PR department.
-JE
2:45 PM, August 15, 2006
Turfing you think?
Possible, definitely possible, but I don't think they would have been overt about the name. I think it's some teenager.
11:16 PM, August 15, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home