As I researched this month’s Watchdog topic, this one hit me: “Female Skin Cancer Spikes 800%, Increase is Alarming …”
[gap height=”15″]
An 800% increase since when? Well, the American Academy of Dermatology made that claim during their summer meeting held in New York this past July. According to the AAD website, rates of melanoma – the deadliest form of skin cancer – between 1970 and 2009, increased 800% among women age 18-39, and it pointed to indoor tanning as the primary culprit.
[gap height=”15″]
Really? Okay, let’s check out the claim. First, look at the research footnotes. Footnote No. 3 has my interest – the info is compiled from a study in Olmstead County, MN, not a cross-section of the entire U.S. Huh? Now, let’s look at Olmstead County where the population is over 90% Caucasian. The entire state is over 85% white and over 1.6 million of them are of Scandinavian descent. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there’s a whole lot of fair-skinned folks in this sample group. So, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that “maybe” the survey is slightly slanted.
[gap height=”15″]
The AAD site goes on: “Because there’s a delay between UV exposure and when skin cancer appears, most women don’t think it will happen to them,” said Washington University’s Dr. M. Laurin Council. “This data reveals the disproportionate rise in the number of skin cancers in women and the need for further education regarding UV exposure.”
[gap height=”15″]
Well, that delay is known as a “latency” period, which Dr. Council failed to point out. For skin cancer, it can be as long as 20-30 years, which clearly calls into question the derm’s media position that indoor tanning is the cause of skin cancer in women in their 20s (or younger). Do the math. Please.
[gap height=”15″]
The study also states, “Indoor tanning by Caucasian girls and young women is of particular focus and could cause more than 400,000 cases of skin cancer in the U.S. each year. One indoor tanning session can increase a person’s risk of developing melanoma by 20 percent.” Wait a minute! One session? There are myriad tanning beds in commerce in the U.S. with a huge variety of exposure times and lamp types. What bed, what lamps, what exposure time and what skin type were the folks who were used to substantiate these numbers? Well, after checking, all I could confirm was … (crickets).
[gap height=”15″]
The last point I’ll tackle in the statement regarding their media release is, “Basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma rates also increased by 145% and 263%.” Well, first I’ll point out that if true, the number is clearly influenced by the exponential increase in the number of free skin cancer screenings available. Sure, come on in! Let’s have a look. See more, diagnose more. Finally, I’ll site the SEER report (as I have in many previous Watchdog columns) – the annual Surveillance, Epidemilogy and End Results Program released by the National Cancer Institute. Interestingly, only statistics for melanoma are listed. Basal and squamous cell carcinoma rates are not part of SEER, as they are garnered by estimates only. Notice that this doesn’t make it into the media release (and likely, never will).
[gap height=”15″]
Hey, IST readers – I’ve got your backs. Make sure you keep this one handy to assist you when responding to folks who point the accusing finger at you and your salon!
[gap height=”15″]
Team IST searches for erroneous, suspect or negative reporting by the media that adversely impacts the tanning industry. Reports such as these have plagued tanning businesses for decades. Although the media sources will seldom admit a falsehood and print a retraction, IST offers these well-crafted responses to the negative reports that can be shared with your customers and potential customers, alike.
