› Forums › Cutaneous Melanoma Community › The Surprising Cause of Melanoma (And No, it’s Not Too Much Sun)
- This topic has 21 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by
bcl.
- Post
-
- November 20, 2011 at 5:17 pm
The Surprising Cause of Melanoma (And No, it's Not Too Much Sun)
Research is uncovering fascinating theories behind the recent epidemic of the deadliest form of skin cancer, melanoma. What's more, the rise is only being seen in indoor workers. Especially if you work indoors, find out how to protect yourself and even cut your overall cancer risk by as much as 60%.—————————————————————————————————
I'm a firm believer that the LACK of sunlight is one or possibly the sole cause of my melanoma.
I have previously posted info about Vitamin D and testing for proper levels. If interested do a
search using my user name.
Best Wishes,
Gene (Stage IV, currently doing a clinical trial using Yervoy with gm-csf)
- Replies
-
-
- November 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm
This has been discussed here before. Be wary of these types of sites as you seem to enjoy these types of readings.
Yes, we do need sun exposure. But beside sun overexposure, there are other envirnomental and genetic factors at play involving melanoma, and lack of sun did not cause my melanoma. A lifetime of being sun foolish did.
Be aware that Joseph M. Mercola,is a controversial osteopath. He has been the subject of criticism from both the business and medical communities. A 2006 Businessweek editorial criticized Mercola's marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics. In 2005, 2006 and 2011 the U.S. Food & Drug Adm. warned Mercola and his company to stop making illegal claims regarding his products' ability to detect, prevent and treat disease. The medical watchdog site Quackwatch has criticized Mercola for making "unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations [and making] many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements.
-
- November 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm
This has been discussed here before. Be wary of these types of sites as you seem to enjoy these types of readings.
Yes, we do need sun exposure. But beside sun overexposure, there are other envirnomental and genetic factors at play involving melanoma, and lack of sun did not cause my melanoma. A lifetime of being sun foolish did.
Be aware that Joseph M. Mercola,is a controversial osteopath. He has been the subject of criticism from both the business and medical communities. A 2006 Businessweek editorial criticized Mercola's marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics. In 2005, 2006 and 2011 the U.S. Food & Drug Adm. warned Mercola and his company to stop making illegal claims regarding his products' ability to detect, prevent and treat disease. The medical watchdog site Quackwatch has criticized Mercola for making "unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations [and making] many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements.
-
- November 20, 2011 at 6:08 pm
This has been discussed here before. Be wary of these types of sites as you seem to enjoy these types of readings.
Yes, we do need sun exposure. But beside sun overexposure, there are other envirnomental and genetic factors at play involving melanoma, and lack of sun did not cause my melanoma. A lifetime of being sun foolish did.
Be aware that Joseph M. Mercola,is a controversial osteopath. He has been the subject of criticism from both the business and medical communities. A 2006 Businessweek editorial criticized Mercola's marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics. In 2005, 2006 and 2011 the U.S. Food & Drug Adm. warned Mercola and his company to stop making illegal claims regarding his products' ability to detect, prevent and treat disease. The medical watchdog site Quackwatch has criticized Mercola for making "unsubstantiated claims and clash with those of leading medical and public health organizations [and making] many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements.
-
- November 20, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I definately think you need a balance in life and I know that my dad never went in the sun, worked indoors all his life and ended up with melanoma. Im not abdicating going out sunbathing but it makes sense that a bit of sun could well be a protection against cancer.
-
- November 20, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I definately think you need a balance in life and I know that my dad never went in the sun, worked indoors all his life and ended up with melanoma. Im not abdicating going out sunbathing but it makes sense that a bit of sun could well be a protection against cancer.
-
- November 20, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I definately think you need a balance in life and I know that my dad never went in the sun, worked indoors all his life and ended up with melanoma. Im not abdicating going out sunbathing but it makes sense that a bit of sun could well be a protection against cancer.
-
- November 21, 2011 at 2:29 am
Thanks for posting, Gene. This information is not surprising to me at all, and contrary to what Anonymous says, I don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. What struck me in the article was the info on UVA. If UVA passes through glass, then we are sitting ducks in our automobiles!!
Cristy, Stage IV
-
- November 21, 2011 at 2:29 am
Thanks for posting, Gene. This information is not surprising to me at all, and contrary to what Anonymous says, I don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. What struck me in the article was the info on UVA. If UVA passes through glass, then we are sitting ducks in our automobiles!!
Cristy, Stage IV
-
- November 21, 2011 at 2:29 am
Thanks for posting, Gene. This information is not surprising to me at all, and contrary to what Anonymous says, I don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. What struck me in the article was the info on UVA. If UVA passes through glass, then we are sitting ducks in our automobiles!!
Cristy, Stage IV
-
- November 21, 2011 at 5:41 am
I do think there is value in Vit D supplementation – there is non-Mercola (I am also wary of him) research by the U.S CDC which shows huge numbers of potential avoided cancers in epidemiological studies. I did NOT find I needed that much supplementation to get above 70ng though. 4000IU a day was/is *heaps* for me.
Also, while similar cautions have been raised recently about breast cancer (that it's the diagnosis of things that would have remained non-threatening leading to the increased incidence rate), it is also the case that caucasian immigrants to Australia (where I am from) have the same rate of melanoma as Australian caucasians if they arrive before 18 but rates more comparable to caucasians who remain in Europe if they arrive after 18. Which was taken as evidence – in the article I read – that sun burning in the young/teen years is where the damage is worst, not so much after the 20s.
Cancer is multifactorial – I don't think it's as simple as one thing. Which means I think we need more than one thing to get on top of it.
AlisonC
Stage IIB
NED since 2001
-
- November 21, 2011 at 5:41 am
I do think there is value in Vit D supplementation – there is non-Mercola (I am also wary of him) research by the U.S CDC which shows huge numbers of potential avoided cancers in epidemiological studies. I did NOT find I needed that much supplementation to get above 70ng though. 4000IU a day was/is *heaps* for me.
Also, while similar cautions have been raised recently about breast cancer (that it's the diagnosis of things that would have remained non-threatening leading to the increased incidence rate), it is also the case that caucasian immigrants to Australia (where I am from) have the same rate of melanoma as Australian caucasians if they arrive before 18 but rates more comparable to caucasians who remain in Europe if they arrive after 18. Which was taken as evidence – in the article I read – that sun burning in the young/teen years is where the damage is worst, not so much after the 20s.
Cancer is multifactorial – I don't think it's as simple as one thing. Which means I think we need more than one thing to get on top of it.
AlisonC
Stage IIB
NED since 2001
-
- November 21, 2011 at 5:41 am
I do think there is value in Vit D supplementation – there is non-Mercola (I am also wary of him) research by the U.S CDC which shows huge numbers of potential avoided cancers in epidemiological studies. I did NOT find I needed that much supplementation to get above 70ng though. 4000IU a day was/is *heaps* for me.
Also, while similar cautions have been raised recently about breast cancer (that it's the diagnosis of things that would have remained non-threatening leading to the increased incidence rate), it is also the case that caucasian immigrants to Australia (where I am from) have the same rate of melanoma as Australian caucasians if they arrive before 18 but rates more comparable to caucasians who remain in Europe if they arrive after 18. Which was taken as evidence – in the article I read – that sun burning in the young/teen years is where the damage is worst, not so much after the 20s.
Cancer is multifactorial – I don't think it's as simple as one thing. Which means I think we need more than one thing to get on top of it.
AlisonC
Stage IIB
NED since 2001
-
- November 22, 2011 at 6:20 pm
What says it all to me about Mercola: He sells tanning beds. http://tanningbeds.mercola.com/tanning-beds/standup-tanning-systems.aspx
His theory doesnt really explain why Australia has the highest rates in the world of melanoma and has the highest exposure to UVB because of the missing Ozone Layer.
After this article came out, all of the tanning companies and tanning addicts started tweeting that tanning doesnt cause melanoma. It reminds me of the tobacco companies that used to say smoking didn't cause cancer.
-
- November 24, 2011 at 1:20 am
I agree Emily, Mercola's theory certainly does not explain why people who tan ('moderately', in a 'controlled' environment..) in tanning beds are still getting cancer! Here we see a tanning salon owner talk about his wife getting melanoma; he blamed the beds but said that he had to keep the business running to pay the bills.
http://www.tantoday.com/forums/salon-discussion/41368-my-wifes-moles-1.html
And you're not the only one who feels a sense of deja vu ..even the salon owner (mentioned above) said that some of the posters sounded like "tobacco execs"
Here's an astute opinion piece on that very subject written by former Vancouver Coastal Health Chief Medical Health Officer Dr. John Blatherwick, CM, OBC, CD, BSc, MD, DPH, FRCP(C), LLD
Is tanning debate the new tobacco war?
John Blatherwick, Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, January 08, 2011
As I sit at home in retirement, I feel a sense of déjà vu stemming from the current clash in the Capital Regional District between health professionals and a powerful industry over an apparent hazard to the public.
A decade ago, after a similar scenario involving tobacco, the CRD became the first jurisdiction in Canada to go entirely "smoke free" indoors. Numerous follow-up studies worldwide have demonstrated lower rates of heart disease and lung cancer with such regulations.
On Wednesday, the CRD board will consider passing regulations governing another cancer risk — the ultraviolet radiation produced in indoor tanning facilities.
The bylaw would ban their use by individuals under the age of 18 years, putting it in the same league as drinking in a bar or purchasing cigarettes.
The indoor tanning industry is opposing the bylaw with the same fervour as the tobacco industry and employing many of the same strategies and tactics, including minimize, delay and deny.
Both tobacco and UV A/B radiation are labelled Group 1 carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer but the tanning industry, like the tobacco industry before it, disputes this categorization.
Both industries produce their own "experts," usually associated with groups that industry has established or financed, to cast doubt on the scientific findings.
Industry wants to persuade regulatory bodies to support it rather than organizations such as the World Health Organization and IARC.
Both industries try to persuade regulators they have safer, healthier, improved versions of their products. Tobacco promoted filters and light cigarettes while the tanning industry has largely dropped the more dangerous UVB rays from tanning beds and talks about a safe tan, one without burning.
Both tobacco and tanning have employed media personalities to promote their industries and enhance their corporate reputations by contributing to worthwhile charities. Canadian tobacco has given to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. The tanning industry has been supportive of the fight against breast cancer.
Neither industry supports effective warnings on their products. The tanning industry emphasizes self-regulation and simple messaging that downplays the negative aspects of the product.
The tobacco industry emphasized the local impact on small business, and in particular the servers who would lose their jobs. The tanning industry has emphasized the negative impact regulation will have on small businesses that are dominated by women.
Both industries oppose attempts to regulate their products. Tobacco offered accommodation, not confrontation, proposing better ventilation as the "solution," despite the evidence.
The tanning industry similarly offers skin typing, trained operators and controlled conditions for tanning as an alternate to legislation, despite studies showing such efforts are largely ineffective for protecting youth.
Both have attempted to delay legislation when it appeared likely to pass. The bylaw for tobacco was delayed for a full year, while the tanning industry has already had a five-year delay from regulations and is calling for more meetings and consultations.
Both industries cloaked themselves in the flag of protecting our freedoms, taking a philosophical stand against government intervention. The tobacco industry was protecting the rights of smokers to light up where they chose. The tanning industry repeatedly cites the rights of parents to choose whether their children should tan or not.
When threatened, the tobacco industry fostered a court challenge, paid lobbyists to challenge the bylaw and secured the services of "debunkers of the junk science" upon which the indoor smoking ban was purportedly based. The tanning industry also cites U.S.-based experts, many of whom come from various institutes" and will likely be in full force in Victoria next week.
I trust that the CRD board will again make the correct choice and continue to be a leader in Canada.
Dr. John Blatherwick is former medical health officer in British Columbia
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2011
-
- November 24, 2011 at 1:20 am
I agree Emily, Mercola's theory certainly does not explain why people who tan ('moderately', in a 'controlled' environment..) in tanning beds are still getting cancer! Here we see a tanning salon owner talk about his wife getting melanoma; he blamed the beds but said that he had to keep the business running to pay the bills.
http://www.tantoday.com/forums/salon-discussion/41368-my-wifes-moles-1.html
And you're not the only one who feels a sense of deja vu ..even the salon owner (mentioned above) said that some of the posters sounded like "tobacco execs"
Here's an astute opinion piece on that very subject written by former Vancouver Coastal Health Chief Medical Health Officer Dr. John Blatherwick, CM, OBC, CD, BSc, MD, DPH, FRCP(C), LLD
Is tanning debate the new tobacco war?
John Blatherwick, Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, January 08, 2011
As I sit at home in retirement, I feel a sense of déjà vu stemming from the current clash in the Capital Regional District between health professionals and a powerful industry over an apparent hazard to the public.
A decade ago, after a similar scenario involving tobacco, the CRD became the first jurisdiction in Canada to go entirely "smoke free" indoors. Numerous follow-up studies worldwide have demonstrated lower rates of heart disease and lung cancer with such regulations.
On Wednesday, the CRD board will consider passing regulations governing another cancer risk — the ultraviolet radiation produced in indoor tanning facilities.
The bylaw would ban their use by individuals under the age of 18 years, putting it in the same league as drinking in a bar or purchasing cigarettes.
The indoor tanning industry is opposing the bylaw with the same fervour as the tobacco industry and employing many of the same strategies and tactics, including minimize, delay and deny.
Both tobacco and UV A/B radiation are labelled Group 1 carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer but the tanning industry, like the tobacco industry before it, disputes this categorization.
Both industries produce their own "experts," usually associated with groups that industry has established or financed, to cast doubt on the scientific findings.
Industry wants to persuade regulatory bodies to support it rather than organizations such as the World Health Organization and IARC.
Both industries try to persuade regulators they have safer, healthier, improved versions of their products. Tobacco promoted filters and light cigarettes while the tanning industry has largely dropped the more dangerous UVB rays from tanning beds and talks about a safe tan, one without burning.
Both tobacco and tanning have employed media personalities to promote their industries and enhance their corporate reputations by contributing to worthwhile charities. Canadian tobacco has given to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. The tanning industry has been supportive of the fight against breast cancer.
Neither industry supports effective warnings on their products. The tanning industry emphasizes self-regulation and simple messaging that downplays the negative aspects of the product.
The tobacco industry emphasized the local impact on small business, and in particular the servers who would lose their jobs. The tanning industry has emphasized the negative impact regulation will have on small businesses that are dominated by women.
Both industries oppose attempts to regulate their products. Tobacco offered accommodation, not confrontation, proposing better ventilation as the "solution," despite the evidence.
The tanning industry similarly offers skin typing, trained operators and controlled conditions for tanning as an alternate to legislation, despite studies showing such efforts are largely ineffective for protecting youth.
Both have attempted to delay legislation when it appeared likely to pass. The bylaw for tobacco was delayed for a full year, while the tanning industry has already had a five-year delay from regulations and is calling for more meetings and consultations.
Both industries cloaked themselves in the flag of protecting our freedoms, taking a philosophical stand against government intervention. The tobacco industry was protecting the rights of smokers to light up where they chose. The tanning industry repeatedly cites the rights of parents to choose whether their children should tan or not.
When threatened, the tobacco industry fostered a court challenge, paid lobbyists to challenge the bylaw and secured the services of "debunkers of the junk science" upon which the indoor smoking ban was purportedly based. The tanning industry also cites U.S.-based experts, many of whom come from various institutes" and will likely be in full force in Victoria next week.
I trust that the CRD board will again make the correct choice and continue to be a leader in Canada.
Dr. John Blatherwick is former medical health officer in British Columbia
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2011
-
- November 24, 2011 at 1:20 am
I agree Emily, Mercola's theory certainly does not explain why people who tan ('moderately', in a 'controlled' environment..) in tanning beds are still getting cancer! Here we see a tanning salon owner talk about his wife getting melanoma; he blamed the beds but said that he had to keep the business running to pay the bills.
http://www.tantoday.com/forums/salon-discussion/41368-my-wifes-moles-1.html
And you're not the only one who feels a sense of deja vu ..even the salon owner (mentioned above) said that some of the posters sounded like "tobacco execs"
Here's an astute opinion piece on that very subject written by former Vancouver Coastal Health Chief Medical Health Officer Dr. John Blatherwick, CM, OBC, CD, BSc, MD, DPH, FRCP(C), LLD
Is tanning debate the new tobacco war?
John Blatherwick, Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, January 08, 2011
As I sit at home in retirement, I feel a sense of déjà vu stemming from the current clash in the Capital Regional District between health professionals and a powerful industry over an apparent hazard to the public.
A decade ago, after a similar scenario involving tobacco, the CRD became the first jurisdiction in Canada to go entirely "smoke free" indoors. Numerous follow-up studies worldwide have demonstrated lower rates of heart disease and lung cancer with such regulations.
On Wednesday, the CRD board will consider passing regulations governing another cancer risk — the ultraviolet radiation produced in indoor tanning facilities.
The bylaw would ban their use by individuals under the age of 18 years, putting it in the same league as drinking in a bar or purchasing cigarettes.
The indoor tanning industry is opposing the bylaw with the same fervour as the tobacco industry and employing many of the same strategies and tactics, including minimize, delay and deny.
Both tobacco and UV A/B radiation are labelled Group 1 carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer but the tanning industry, like the tobacco industry before it, disputes this categorization.
Both industries produce their own "experts," usually associated with groups that industry has established or financed, to cast doubt on the scientific findings.
Industry wants to persuade regulatory bodies to support it rather than organizations such as the World Health Organization and IARC.
Both industries try to persuade regulators they have safer, healthier, improved versions of their products. Tobacco promoted filters and light cigarettes while the tanning industry has largely dropped the more dangerous UVB rays from tanning beds and talks about a safe tan, one without burning.
Both tobacco and tanning have employed media personalities to promote their industries and enhance their corporate reputations by contributing to worthwhile charities. Canadian tobacco has given to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. The tanning industry has been supportive of the fight against breast cancer.
Neither industry supports effective warnings on their products. The tanning industry emphasizes self-regulation and simple messaging that downplays the negative aspects of the product.
The tobacco industry emphasized the local impact on small business, and in particular the servers who would lose their jobs. The tanning industry has emphasized the negative impact regulation will have on small businesses that are dominated by women.
Both industries oppose attempts to regulate their products. Tobacco offered accommodation, not confrontation, proposing better ventilation as the "solution," despite the evidence.
The tanning industry similarly offers skin typing, trained operators and controlled conditions for tanning as an alternate to legislation, despite studies showing such efforts are largely ineffective for protecting youth.
Both have attempted to delay legislation when it appeared likely to pass. The bylaw for tobacco was delayed for a full year, while the tanning industry has already had a five-year delay from regulations and is calling for more meetings and consultations.
Both industries cloaked themselves in the flag of protecting our freedoms, taking a philosophical stand against government intervention. The tobacco industry was protecting the rights of smokers to light up where they chose. The tanning industry repeatedly cites the rights of parents to choose whether their children should tan or not.
When threatened, the tobacco industry fostered a court challenge, paid lobbyists to challenge the bylaw and secured the services of "debunkers of the junk science" upon which the indoor smoking ban was purportedly based. The tanning industry also cites U.S.-based experts, many of whom come from various institutes" and will likely be in full force in Victoria next week.
I trust that the CRD board will again make the correct choice and continue to be a leader in Canada.
Dr. John Blatherwick is former medical health officer in British Columbia
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2011
-
- November 22, 2011 at 6:20 pm
What says it all to me about Mercola: He sells tanning beds. http://tanningbeds.mercola.com/tanning-beds/standup-tanning-systems.aspx
His theory doesnt really explain why Australia has the highest rates in the world of melanoma and has the highest exposure to UVB because of the missing Ozone Layer.
After this article came out, all of the tanning companies and tanning addicts started tweeting that tanning doesnt cause melanoma. It reminds me of the tobacco companies that used to say smoking didn't cause cancer.
-
- November 22, 2011 at 6:20 pm
What says it all to me about Mercola: He sells tanning beds. http://tanningbeds.mercola.com/tanning-beds/standup-tanning-systems.aspx
His theory doesnt really explain why Australia has the highest rates in the world of melanoma and has the highest exposure to UVB because of the missing Ozone Layer.
After this article came out, all of the tanning companies and tanning addicts started tweeting that tanning doesnt cause melanoma. It reminds me of the tobacco companies that used to say smoking didn't cause cancer.
-
- November 24, 2011 at 1:37 am
Hi Gene, the jury is still out on this subject and I welcome the opportunity to share theories. I got sun burns as a child, mostly on my arms and shoulders. No sun screen back then, just a wind screen that I would huddle close to in order to find shade. ( We were in breezy Northern Ireland.) My parents loved the sun; dad gets a dark tan just walking around the block, mum not so easily, but she can tan- I have skin type 1 and just can't tan. I had a few more burns as a teen when we emigrated to Canada and then basically stayed out of the sun my adult life, with the exception of leaving my arms uncovered. My melanoma appeared on my upper arm, so I tend to believe the doctors on this one and blame accumulated UV exposure.
Last month, researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston announced they have confirmed the association between tanning bed use and skin cancer, and that the risk increased 11 percent for melanoma and 15 percent for basal cell carcinoma with every four visits per year. A total of 73,494 nurses participated in the Nurses’ Health Study. Tanning bed use was tracked during high school and college. Researchers concluded that "The use during high school/college had a stronger effect on the increased risk for basal cell carcinoma compared with use during ages 25 to 35,” http://aacrnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/increased-tanning-bed-use-increases-risk-for-deadly-skin-cancers/
Like I said, the jury is still out. ( But the evidence is growing… )
Increased Tanning Bed Use Increases Risk for Deadly Skin Cancers
October 24, 2011- Indoor tanning use increased risk for three common skin cancers.
- Risk increased 11 percent to 15 percent with use every four times per year.
- Risk effect was more predominant during high school/college.
BOSTON — Researchers confirmed an association between tanning bed use and an increased risk for three common skin cancers — basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma, according to results presented at the 10th AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, held Oct. 22-25, 2011.
The popularity of indoor tanning is widespread, with roughly 10 percent of Americans using a tanning facility each year. However, use of tanning beds has been shown to be associated with an increased risk for skin cancer, according to lead researcher Mingfeng Zhang, M.D., research fellow in the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.
For this cohort study, Zhang and colleagues followed 73,494 nurses who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study II from 1989 to 2009. They tracked tanning bed use during high school and college and when women were aged between 25 and 35 years old. They also tracked the overall average usage during both periods in relation to basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma.
Results showed that tanning bed use increased skin cancer risk with a dose-response effect. More tanning bed exposure led to higher risks. Compared with nonusers, the risk for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma increased by 15 percent for every four visits made to a tanning booth per year; the risk for melanoma increased by 11 percent.
“The use during high school/college had a stronger effect on the increased risk for basal cell carcinoma compared with use during ages 25 to 35,” Zhang said.
“These results have a public health impact on skin cancer prevention for all three types of skin cancer,” she said. “[They] can be used to warn the public against future use of tanning beds and to promote restrictions on the indoor tanning industry by policymakers.”
In follow-up studies, the researchers plan to monitor skin cancer incidence and to assess the association with tanning bed usage in this cohort during a longer term.
# # #Follow the AACR on Twitter: @aacr #aacr
Follow the AACR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/aacr.orgThe mission of the American Association for Cancer Research is to prevent and cure cancer. Founded in 1907, the AACR is the world’s oldest and largest professional organization dedicated to advancing cancer research. The membership includes 33,000 laboratory, translational and clinical researchers; health care professionals; and cancer survivors and advocates in the United States and more than 90 other countries. The AACR marshals the full spectrum of expertise from the cancer community to accelerate progress in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer through high-quality scientific and educational programs. It funds innovative, meritorious research grants, research fellowships and career development awards to young investigators, and it also funds cutting-edge research projects conducted by senior researchers. The AACR has numerous fruitful collaborations with organizations and foundations in the U.S. and abroad, and functions as the Scientific Partner of Stand Up To Cancer, a charitable initiative that supports groundbreaking research aimed at getting new cancer treatments to patients in an accelerated time frame. The AACR Annual Meeting attracts more than 17,000 participants who share the latest discoveries and developments in the field. Special Conferences throughout the year present novel data across a wide variety of topics in cancer research, treatment and patient care, and Educational Workshops are held for the training of young cancer investigators. The AACR publishes seven major peer-reviewed journals: Cancer Discovery; Cancer Research; Clinical Cancer Research; Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention; Molecular Cancer Therapeutics; Molecular Cancer Research; and Cancer Prevention Research. In 2010, AACR journals received 20 percent of the total number of citations given to oncology journals. The AACR also publishes Cancer Today, a magazine for cancer patients, survivors and their caregivers, which provides practical knowledge and new hope for cancer survivors. A major goal of the AACR is to educate the general public and policymakers about the value of cancer research in improving public health, the vital importance of increases in sustained funding for cancer research and biomedical science, and the need for national policies that foster innovation and the acceleration of progress against the 200 diseases we call cancer.
-
- November 24, 2011 at 1:37 am
Hi Gene, the jury is still out on this subject and I welcome the opportunity to share theories. I got sun burns as a child, mostly on my arms and shoulders. No sun screen back then, just a wind screen that I would huddle close to in order to find shade. ( We were in breezy Northern Ireland.) My parents loved the sun; dad gets a dark tan just walking around the block, mum not so easily, but she can tan- I have skin type 1 and just can't tan. I had a few more burns as a teen when we emigrated to Canada and then basically stayed out of the sun my adult life, with the exception of leaving my arms uncovered. My melanoma appeared on my upper arm, so I tend to believe the doctors on this one and blame accumulated UV exposure.
Last month, researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston announced they have confirmed the association between tanning bed use and skin cancer, and that the risk increased 11 percent for melanoma and 15 percent for basal cell carcinoma with every four visits per year. A total of 73,494 nurses participated in the Nurses’ Health Study. Tanning bed use was tracked during high school and college. Researchers concluded that "The use during high school/college had a stronger effect on the increased risk for basal cell carcinoma compared with use during ages 25 to 35,” http://aacrnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/increased-tanning-bed-use-increases-risk-for-deadly-skin-cancers/
Like I said, the jury is still out. ( But the evidence is growing… )
Increased Tanning Bed Use Increases Risk for Deadly Skin Cancers
October 24, 2011- Indoor tanning use increased risk for three common skin cancers.
- Risk increased 11 percent to 15 percent with use every four times per year.
- Risk effect was more predominant during high school/college.
BOSTON — Researchers confirmed an association between tanning bed use and an increased risk for three common skin cancers — basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma, according to results presented at the 10th AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, held Oct. 22-25, 2011.
The popularity of indoor tanning is widespread, with roughly 10 percent of Americans using a tanning facility each year. However, use of tanning beds has been shown to be associated with an increased risk for skin cancer, according to lead researcher Mingfeng Zhang, M.D., research fellow in the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.
For this cohort study, Zhang and colleagues followed 73,494 nurses who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study II from 1989 to 2009. They tracked tanning bed use during high school and college and when women were aged between 25 and 35 years old. They also tracked the overall average usage during both periods in relation to basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma.
Results showed that tanning bed use increased skin cancer risk with a dose-response effect. More tanning bed exposure led to higher risks. Compared with nonusers, the risk for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma increased by 15 percent for every four visits made to a tanning booth per year; the risk for melanoma increased by 11 percent.
“The use during high school/college had a stronger effect on the increased risk for basal cell carcinoma compared with use during ages 25 to 35,” Zhang said.
“These results have a public health impact on skin cancer prevention for all three types of skin cancer,” she said. “[They] can be used to warn the public against future use of tanning beds and to promote restrictions on the indoor tanning industry by policymakers.”
In follow-up studies, the researchers plan to monitor skin cancer incidence and to assess the association with tanning bed usage in this cohort during a longer term.
# # #Follow the AACR on Twitter: @aacr #aacr
Follow the AACR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/aacr.orgThe mission of the American Association for Cancer Research is to prevent and cure cancer. Founded in 1907, the AACR is the world’s oldest and largest professional organization dedicated to advancing cancer research. The membership includes 33,000 laboratory, translational and clinical researchers; health care professionals; and cancer survivors and advocates in the United States and more than 90 other countries. The AACR marshals the full spectrum of expertise from the cancer community to accelerate progress in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer through high-quality scientific and educational programs. It funds innovative, meritorious research grants, research fellowships and career development awards to young investigators, and it also funds cutting-edge research projects conducted by senior researchers. The AACR has numerous fruitful collaborations with organizations and foundations in the U.S. and abroad, and functions as the Scientific Partner of Stand Up To Cancer, a charitable initiative that supports groundbreaking research aimed at getting new cancer treatments to patients in an accelerated time frame. The AACR Annual Meeting attracts more than 17,000 participants who share the latest discoveries and developments in the field. Special Conferences throughout the year present novel data across a wide variety of topics in cancer research, treatment and patient care, and Educational Workshops are held for the training of young cancer investigators. The AACR publishes seven major peer-reviewed journals: Cancer Discovery; Cancer Research; Clinical Cancer Research; Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention; Molecular Cancer Therapeutics; Molecular Cancer Research; and Cancer Prevention Research. In 2010, AACR journals received 20 percent of the total number of citations given to oncology journals. The AACR also publishes Cancer Today, a magazine for cancer patients, survivors and their caregivers, which provides practical knowledge and new hope for cancer survivors. A major goal of the AACR is to educate the general public and policymakers about the value of cancer research in improving public health, the vital importance of increases in sustained funding for cancer research and biomedical science, and the need for national policies that foster innovation and the acceleration of progress against the 200 diseases we call cancer.
-
- November 24, 2011 at 1:37 am
Hi Gene, the jury is still out on this subject and I welcome the opportunity to share theories. I got sun burns as a child, mostly on my arms and shoulders. No sun screen back then, just a wind screen that I would huddle close to in order to find shade. ( We were in breezy Northern Ireland.) My parents loved the sun; dad gets a dark tan just walking around the block, mum not so easily, but she can tan- I have skin type 1 and just can't tan. I had a few more burns as a teen when we emigrated to Canada and then basically stayed out of the sun my adult life, with the exception of leaving my arms uncovered. My melanoma appeared on my upper arm, so I tend to believe the doctors on this one and blame accumulated UV exposure.
Last month, researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston announced they have confirmed the association between tanning bed use and skin cancer, and that the risk increased 11 percent for melanoma and 15 percent for basal cell carcinoma with every four visits per year. A total of 73,494 nurses participated in the Nurses’ Health Study. Tanning bed use was tracked during high school and college. Researchers concluded that "The use during high school/college had a stronger effect on the increased risk for basal cell carcinoma compared with use during ages 25 to 35,” http://aacrnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/increased-tanning-bed-use-increases-risk-for-deadly-skin-cancers/
Like I said, the jury is still out. ( But the evidence is growing… )
Increased Tanning Bed Use Increases Risk for Deadly Skin Cancers
October 24, 2011- Indoor tanning use increased risk for three common skin cancers.
- Risk increased 11 percent to 15 percent with use every four times per year.
- Risk effect was more predominant during high school/college.
BOSTON — Researchers confirmed an association between tanning bed use and an increased risk for three common skin cancers — basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma, according to results presented at the 10th AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, held Oct. 22-25, 2011.
The popularity of indoor tanning is widespread, with roughly 10 percent of Americans using a tanning facility each year. However, use of tanning beds has been shown to be associated with an increased risk for skin cancer, according to lead researcher Mingfeng Zhang, M.D., research fellow in the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.
For this cohort study, Zhang and colleagues followed 73,494 nurses who participated in the Nurses’ Health Study II from 1989 to 2009. They tracked tanning bed use during high school and college and when women were aged between 25 and 35 years old. They also tracked the overall average usage during both periods in relation to basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma.
Results showed that tanning bed use increased skin cancer risk with a dose-response effect. More tanning bed exposure led to higher risks. Compared with nonusers, the risk for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma increased by 15 percent for every four visits made to a tanning booth per year; the risk for melanoma increased by 11 percent.
“The use during high school/college had a stronger effect on the increased risk for basal cell carcinoma compared with use during ages 25 to 35,” Zhang said.
“These results have a public health impact on skin cancer prevention for all three types of skin cancer,” she said. “[They] can be used to warn the public against future use of tanning beds and to promote restrictions on the indoor tanning industry by policymakers.”
In follow-up studies, the researchers plan to monitor skin cancer incidence and to assess the association with tanning bed usage in this cohort during a longer term.
# # #Follow the AACR on Twitter: @aacr #aacr
Follow the AACR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/aacr.orgThe mission of the American Association for Cancer Research is to prevent and cure cancer. Founded in 1907, the AACR is the world’s oldest and largest professional organization dedicated to advancing cancer research. The membership includes 33,000 laboratory, translational and clinical researchers; health care professionals; and cancer survivors and advocates in the United States and more than 90 other countries. The AACR marshals the full spectrum of expertise from the cancer community to accelerate progress in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer through high-quality scientific and educational programs. It funds innovative, meritorious research grants, research fellowships and career development awards to young investigators, and it also funds cutting-edge research projects conducted by senior researchers. The AACR has numerous fruitful collaborations with organizations and foundations in the U.S. and abroad, and functions as the Scientific Partner of Stand Up To Cancer, a charitable initiative that supports groundbreaking research aimed at getting new cancer treatments to patients in an accelerated time frame. The AACR Annual Meeting attracts more than 17,000 participants who share the latest discoveries and developments in the field. Special Conferences throughout the year present novel data across a wide variety of topics in cancer research, treatment and patient care, and Educational Workshops are held for the training of young cancer investigators. The AACR publishes seven major peer-reviewed journals: Cancer Discovery; Cancer Research; Clinical Cancer Research; Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention; Molecular Cancer Therapeutics; Molecular Cancer Research; and Cancer Prevention Research. In 2010, AACR journals received 20 percent of the total number of citations given to oncology journals. The AACR also publishes Cancer Today, a magazine for cancer patients, survivors and their caregivers, which provides practical knowledge and new hope for cancer survivors. A major goal of the AACR is to educate the general public and policymakers about the value of cancer research in improving public health, the vital importance of increases in sustained funding for cancer research and biomedical science, and the need for national policies that foster innovation and the acceleration of progress against the 200 diseases we call cancer.
-
Tagged: cutaneous melanoma
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.