Psoriasis and Tanning Beds

Credit: Rich McDonald

I ran across a headline during a general Google search stating, “Kim Kardashian At Ulta – Promotes Kardashian Sun Kissed.”  This was immediately next to another headline touting, “Kim Kardashian  Flaunts Cleavage in Tight Pink Dress.”  The second headline itself was no more shocking to me than, “Scientists Determine that Water is Wet.”  However, the first headline grabbed my attention as I wanted to see whether or not Mrs. West was promoting “safe” tanning products or tanning enhancers.

When I clicked the link, there she was in her tight pink dress and plenty of cleavage.  In truth, all things Kardashian, or any name associated with tabloid headline pandering, simply turns me off.  To use an old cliché, I was reading this for the article.

Sure enough, Kim was appearing at a Los Angeles Ulta Beauty Store to promote the Kardashian Sun Kissed tanning line.  While her tanning product line does include self-tanning products, it also includes a “tanning extender” which is used after tanning to lengthen the life of one’s tan.  This didn't surprise me at all as I had little faith that any Kardashian would promote sun safety, despite having had episodes of skin cancer in the family.  While there was no surprise in the article, there was one major face-palm quote from Kim.

When I travel, the one thing that makes me feel alive whether or not I have makeup on is a tan, especially in my face. When you travel, you can’t just go lay out. I do like regular tanning because I have psoriasis, and the tanning beds are particularly good for that.

Tanning beds are good for that…that being good for the treatment of psoriasis?  I've heard that before.  I’ve addressed it before.  But I’ll address it again.

If you search the internet for “Psoriasis and tanning beds,” you’ll find a variety of information on both sides of the argument.  The fact is that Phototherapy is indeed a legitimate way to treat psoriasis.  Ultraviolet B rays (UVB) penetrates the skin and slows the growth of the affected cells.  Treatment is recommended to be administered on a set schedule by a medical professional, although there are home-based systems available by prescription only.  Sometimes, the UVB therapy is combined with a topical agent or other medication to make the treatments more efficient.  UVA rays are also used in other forms of light therapy, but only in conjunction with a medication psoralen which makes the skin more sensitive and much be monitored VERY closely.  All therapies described above, in fact are monitored closely by a health care specialist.  

So tanning beds should be a good alternative…right?  Wrong!  The majority of tanning beds emit primarily UVA rays which are mostly ineffective against psoriasis, unless combined with psoralen as mentioned above.  But again, this medication causes the skin to be much more light-sensitive and severe burning will occur.  There are tanning beds that emit UVB rays, but they are hardly regulated for intensity and not properly adjusted for specific treatment of psoriasis.

The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) has this to say about tanning beds:

Phototherapy (light therapy), performed under medical supervision is safe, effective, and cost-effective. The National Psoriasis Foundation does not support the use of indoor tanning beds as a substitute for phototherapy performed with a prescription and under the supervision of a physician. Only medical professionals should provide and advertise light therapy for the treatment of psoriasis.

The NPF goes on to say that the “spectra of light in tanning beds vary greatly and often include wavelengths of light that are carcinogenic and photo-damaging.” The NPF’s full statement on tanning beds can be found here.

There are plenty of accounts online from people that claim that tanning beds DID help with their psoriasis, and I don’t doubt that they believe that.  Many people don’t consider other influences that may have simultaneously impacted their improved condition.  Did they change their medication?  Were there other changes?  Or did their condition improve simply from the placebo effect?  I don’t often doubt that when something works, it works.  But at the same time, I feel it’s best to take the advice of medical professionals devoted to the treatment of this skin condition rather than trust the declaration of a tabloid celebrity.

Disclaimer reminder…I’m not a medical professional.  I’m just a guy that’s expressing his opinion based on what I've read in articles from various organizations and individuals representing various views related to melanoma and skin cancer.  My opinions are mine and I’m not paid by anyone to express them.  And trust me, I wish I were getting paid just to be me.  But then again, if I was, I’d probably be a Kardashian.

Is Anti-Tan the Same as Anti-Sun?

Whenever I read an article about anti-tanning legislation on a local news website, the “comments” section is filled with those opposed to such a ban.  They cite that government should not dictate parental rights (yet we have age restrictions on cigarettes and alcohol as well as many others).  Some mention that tanning beds provide valuable Vitamin D to a population that’s seriously deficient (it doesn’t).  Whatever the argument, I typically write it off as the person being misinformed.  I sometimes offer up a response, but I’ve also learned that once someone has an opinion, it’s pretty difficult to change it. 

However, there’s one misconception I see over and over that just floors me.  “Anti-tanners want to ban sunshine!”  This couldn’t be farther from the truth.  Sure, one can get an unhealthy dose of UV radiation from the sunshine, but one needs to understand the difference between exposure in a tanning bed versus exposure under the sun.

As you probably know, there are two types of UV rays emitted by the sun.  UVA rays go deeper into the skin and typically don’t burn.  They cause the inner skin to darken or tan.  They also cause the skin to age more quickly (UVA –UV Aging) and cause DNA damage.  UVB affects the surface if the skin more and causes sun burns (UVB – UV Burning).

Your body is an amazing thing.  When there is danger, it has a way of warning you.  If you touch something that’s hot, your skin feel s pain and you instantly pull away your hand.  But what if you couldn’t feel that pain?

Imagine going to a dentist and you have your mouth numbed with Novocain.  Before you leave, the dentist warns you not to drink anything hot or to bite your lip.  He issues this warning because he knows that while you can’t feel the pain, you can damage your lips or mouth. 

Your body has a natural mechanism to protect itself from too much sun exposure.  When UVB rays from natural sunshine start to burn the skin, the body announces that it’s time to seek shade.  Without those UVB rays, the body has no way of detecting when it’s time to get out of the sun.  That’s where the danger lays in tanning beds versus sunshine. 

There are no UVB rays in most tanning beds, so your body won’t get burnt.  However, the UVA rays still penetrate your skin and cause serious damage.  In fact, the amount of UVA radiation from the bed may actually be many times more intense than from natural sunlight!  When you leave the tanning salon, you won’t feel the pain or the burn, but the damage will be there.  It’s like drinking scalding hot coffee with a numb mouth…you won’t feel the pain, but the damage has taken place.

This is not to say that the sun is entirely safe, but this doesn’t mean that we fear the sun and expect it to be shunned.  What we do is respect the sun. 

Those who have been adversely affected by the sun (whether it be from melanoma or aged skin) have every right to fear the sun.  But for many, they’ve learned to respect it rather than fear it.  They have learned that it’s important to wear sunscreen when enjoying the sun’s warmth.  They know it’s best to seek shade between 10AM and 4PM when the sun’s rays are at their strongest.  They know that wearing a hat provides additional protection.  Believe it or not, they enjoy the sun very much.  They embrace the sun.  They also know the limits in which to enjoy and learned to respect it.

So are those opposed to tanning in beds also opposed to the sun?  No.  In fact, we encourage you to enjoy the sun, but to be safe within in.  Just realize that a tanning bed offers much different dangers from the sun and they should indeed be avoided.  Tanning beds are NOT the sun…not at all.

Sources:  American Cancer Society, Skin Cancer Foundation, Melanoma Research Foundation, and plain ol' common sense!

What Happens to the Tanning Beds?

Sometime last year, I shared that our family hair stylist closed downthe tanning portion of their business.  Two tanning beds, one tanning booth, and one leg tanner were shut down!  However, the machines have remained in place for over a year.  I finally decided to ask why they still haunted the back section of the building (although gathering dust rather than causing cancer).  I was told that the owner was having trouble getting rid of the machines.  Apparently, there just is not as many people starting up tanning businesses as there used to be.  I suppose this is a cause for celebration.  Or caution.

I wondered where one tries to sell unwanted goods.  In the case of personal garage sales, the newspaper classified would be the logical choice.  But then again, classified ads are becoming a thing of the past thanks to internet sites such as Craigslist.  So, I decided to take a peek and see if maybe closing tanning salons were offloading their equipment on Craigslist.

Most definitely yes.  Here’s a sample of today’s ads:

 

 

In short, it looks like at least one tanning bed is posted per day in the Raleigh area alone.  When I dug in a little more, the prices range from a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars.  Overall, the cost was relatively cheap compared to new units.

Out of curiosity, I decided to respond to a few of ads.  I used an alias name (Mel Carson) and mentioned that I was shopping for a tanning bed for my daughter and asked if there were any regulations regarding radiation control.  (Yeah, I felt dirty typing the emails)  Here’s the most detailed answer I received:

There are no regulations if you have a personal tanning bed in your home. Of course, you know to never exceed 20 minutes in a tanning bed in one day. The bed does have a 20 minute timer on it and a built in fan. You can set the time for as little as 2 minutes to 20 minutes. Always start out slow, usually 7 minutes to see your skin reaction. Then gradually increase to the full 20 minute time frame. It takes a 220 amp for hookup. I use tanning bed cleaning solution that I buy at Sally's beauty supply store, it's really cheap.  Me and my daughters have really enjoyed it, but they are older now and have new interests, lol! The bed really is good, we have one bulb out but it really hasn't made any difference with tanning. Bulbs are ordered on line when you replace them. I would just keep tanning until I needed more replaced which should be a while!

I was pleased that this person mentioned time limits and some sense of caution, but very displeased to read that her daughters were “older now and have new interests.”  To me, this says her daughters were in their teens, maybe even early teens when they used the bed.  Not good.  I was also surprised to read that Sally’s sells the tanning bed cleaning solution.  Tsk tsk.  But I digress.

I was suspicious about there being no regulations for home tanning beds, so I contacted the North Carolina Radiation Section of the Division of Health Services…the people who regulate tanning salons.  They confirmed that there are no regulations for those individuals who own tanning equipment for personal use.

This doesn’t surprise me.  Despite regulations on cigarette and wine sales, it’s legal to make your own at home for personal use without any type of home inspection.  I’m not opposed to that at all…I once made my own beer from a kit.  It tasted like crap, but I made it.  But my concern is that folks who are able to buy these industrial tanning beds for pennies on the dollar will not properly monitor their own use.  Also, they’ll not properly maintain the equipment causing all kinds of potential risks to their own health.

The point of this post is not to warn folks against buying used tanning beds. (Those who will do so don’t read this blog anyhow).  While we’re advocating the elimination of tanning beds (at least preventing use by minors), let’s not forget that raising awareness about the dangers should be our most important mission.  The only way to prevent the redistribution of the cancer coffins is to educate folks as to why such usage is a bad idea.  Changing a cultural mindset is a daunting and frustrating task that could take years, but it’s a task well worth taking on.

The Sun/Water Analogy

Earlier this week, the Today Show on NBC had a segment called “The Truth About Sunless Tanning.”  Within it, Joseph Levy, executive director of Smart Tan, a so-called education institute for the tanning industry, debated the benefits of sunless tanning…i.e., use of a tanning bed.  During the rather heated debate, he stated the following:

“To say that any UV exposure is damaging and therefore should be avoided would be like saying water causes drowning, therefore you should avoid water.  It is an essential element of life…water, air and sun.”

Mr. Levy, your demeanor during the debate tells me that there is no way that one could convince you that tanning beds are a bad choice.  They are bad…but I’ll accept your ignorance.  However, your analogy regarding sunlight and water is most certainly flawed.  In fact, I believe the water analogy supports the anti-tanning initiative much more.

It is true that both sun and water are essential to life.  Without either, all living things would perish.  I have told my own children that the sun is a good thing.  It feels good, it makes plants (and children) grow, and it should not be feared.  The same can be said for water…it’s essential and recreational.  But too much of either can be dangerous.  There are such things as scorching droughts as well as intense floods…both devastating natural disasters brought on by the essentials of life.  But let’s focus on the smaller scale.

The danger regarding water comes when a person enters who is a non-swimmer.  For obvious reasons, this person could drown.  This essential of life can be very dangerous indeed.  So how can a person still enjoy the water?  First of all, he needs to know his own limits.  Can he handle shallow water?  Would it be better to learn to swim?  And what happens if he takes a boat ride?  I think we’d all agree that he should wear a life jacket around deeper water.

Now let’s apply this analogy to the sun.  It only takes a few minutes of sun exposure to start the damage, especially for lighter skin tones.  It’s best to know one’s limits and wear appropriate protective clothing, hats and sunglasses.  But what of those longer days spent enjoying the sun…at the beach, pool, golf course, etc.?  That’s the analogy to deep water, therefore put on the lifejacket…the sunscreen!  Of course, it should be worn all the time, but especially worn (and reapplied every 2 hours!) during excessive sun exposure.

It’s foolish to think that anything is 100% safe.  Yes, there are benefits to the sun and I embrace them as much as anyone else.  There are also dangers…just as there is with water.  Speaking as a former lifeguard, I‘ve witnessed the joys and dangers of both sun and water.  Both need to be respected.

That’s the truth.

Thank You Mela-Momma!

Note:  I wrote this piece just prior to learning about Chelsea Price’s interview on Headline News today.  Make no mistake, she’s a true “celebrity of melanoma!”

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think that someone within the Skin Cancer Foundation created the ultimate public relations coup.  Out of the blue, an unwitting New Jersey tanning addict put skin cancer awareness and anti-tanning campaigns right on page one!  And all of this happened on the first day of Skin Cancer Awareness Month…assuring at least a few days of headline-grabbing stories and discussions.

Patricia Krentcil…otherwise known as the Tan Mom (I prefer Mela-Momma) allegedly took her 6 year old daughter to a tanning salon.  It was reported that the young girl (who is light-skinned with red hair!) was sun burnt and the implication was that the child actually used a tanning bed with her mother.  Both parents deny the allegations, stating that their daughter got too much sun while simply playing outside.  I suppose it’s for the authorities to sort out.

If indeed Mela-Momma is found guilty, not only does she have to answer to her actions, the tanning salon has to explain why they violated New Jersey law which prohibits children under 14 from using tanning devices.  If it’s found that the child never entered a booth or bed, but was in the same room as her mother as she tanned, the establishment still has to answer for their actions.  And if it’s found that the child sat in the lobby as Mela-Momma sat in the rotisserie, the salon is off the hook…sort of.  When a bar serves a patron too many drinks, they’re significantly and legally to blame for allowing the drinker to drive away.  Is a tanning salon guilty of the same if they let an obvious over-tanner continue to bathe in UV radiation?  This offers further confirmation of the Senate findings of the tanning industry’s sleazy actions.

But let’s get back to the anti-hero of our cause.   There have been countless articles and opinion pieces about Mela-Momma.  One good article from MSNBC offers insight to the real damage to skin.  And last night, Dr. Drew devoted half of his talk show to Ms. Krentcil and offered impromptu diagnosis of her addictive behavior and apparent body dysmorphic disorder.  He had another tanner…an attractive girl named Michelle (I think), that seemed to showcase the “real” tanner.  But at the same time, she exhibited her own seemingly addictive comments and really didn’t shed an approving light on tanning at all.  (And of course the more attractive Ms. Chelsea Price also appeared via Skype and made a great positive pitch for sun safety!)

I even had a conversation with my extreme-tanner co-worker today…asking her not to tan as much as Mela-Momma.  She promised that she wouldn’t (the jury is still out on that).

Tanning has taken a big hit.  Mela-Momma’s shoe-polished flesh will be long connected to the act of tanning, and it’ll turn people away.  At the same time, this occurs just as Skin Cancer/Melanoma Awareness Month kicks into gear.

An extreme tanner exposed in May, thus ensuring extended coverage of tanning dangers and skin cancer.  I couldn’t have planned it any better myself!

Dr. Nemesis I Presume

There is a short list of “opposing doctors that I can recall.  James Bond had Dr. No as his nemesis.  Austin powers had his Dr. Evil.  And now, Melanoma Warriors have their own opposing doctor…but it’s not who you think.

Dr. Mehmet Oz recently made a comment on his show about rethinking the use of tanning beds for certain health benefits.  He did use the words “not for tanning,” but it was too late…molemates everywhere were shocked and disappointed that Dr. oz would even suggest stepping near a tanning bed.   He later wrote a blog on his website to reassure all that he still has a strong stance against the use of tanning beds, but that he was nevertheless intrigued by what his guest, a doctor, had to share.  I personally believe that Dr. Oz was merely offering up encouraging conversation with his guest so as not to create a negative impression on his show.  The only problem is, when Dr. Oz talks, many impressionable viewers listen, and that was the danger of his comment.  The guest’s comments however were indeed intriguing, but I was appalled by the suggestion to use such devices for therapy.  Dr. Oz’s guest was Dr. Joe Mercola.  Remember that name.  He is the nemesis to Melanoma warriors, not Dr. Oz.

Dr. Mercola is described as a cutting edge and often very controversial medical expert.  Such doctors in the past have been met with skepticism and criticism, only to later be hailed as cutting edge and innovative.  To some extent, Dr. Atkins of the famous Atkins' Diet was such a person.  Many claimed success following this diet while nutritionists all debunked his no-carb approach as hogwash.  Now, lower-carb (not no-carb) diets are suggested more so than low fat and one wonders if this trend would have taken place had not that crack-pot Dr. Atkins been stubbornly promoting his diet.  So is Dr. Mercola destined for the same path to higher praise?  I’m not a medical professional by any stretch of the imagination, but with regard to his views on tanning beds, I think not.  Why?  He sells them

Dr. Mercola sells tanning beds.

That says it all.  But does this one entrepreneurial venture alone make him our nemesis?  No, but there’s more.  On three separate occasions, the U.S Food and Drug Administration warned Dr. Mercola and his company to "to stop making illegal claims regarding his products' ability to detect, prevent and treat disease."

I ran across an article from the good Dr. Mercola titled “A Surprising Cause of Melanoma.”  He cites a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology which suggests that “the sun is likely nothing more than a scapegoat in the development of melanoma, and the sharp increase may actually be ‘an artifact caused by diagnostic drift.’”  In other words, people are being misdiagnosed with melanoma skin cancer even when they have only a minimal, non-cancerous lesion, and these diagnoses appear to be skewing disease rates significantly.  In short, he seems to be claiming that melanoma rates are not truly increasing.

The article goes on to discuss the importance of Vitamin D, the benefits of UVB rays to produce such vitamin D, the “best time” for UVB absorption (high noon to 1:00), and, surprise, the use of safe tanning beds…which he sells.  He also suggests participating in a Vitamin D deficiency study…for a fee of $60 per year.

Admittedly, both his appearance on The Dr. Oz Show and this article are intriguing...and maybe, just maybe medically sound.  But I don’t buy it.  Again, I’m not a medical professional, but I think there needs to be a lot more study on such claims.  I believe that people should enjoy life in the sun, but with caution by using sunscreen and avoiding the hottest part of the day.  I believe in taking Vitamin D3 supplements (but not too many).  And I believe I’ll side with the more established organizations who claim UV radiation from tanning lamps cause cancer, such as the American Academy of Dermatology, The Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, the Skin Cancer Foundation and many others.

Dr. Oz, please air a public statement about the error of your previous “rethinking” and I’ll forgive you.  Dr. Mercola, until your theories are substantiated by mainstream and respected medical groups, keep your tanning beds to yourself.

Talking About D Facts

Nothing gets the ire up on someone that’s been affected by melanoma more that another person defending the use of tanning beds.  The defender will usually mention that a “base tan” helps to protect from further sun damage (wrong).  But more often than not, they put on their most confident face when they mention the need for Vitamin D.  Recently, there were two very different talk shows which had guests that both used the Vitamin D Defense.

Dr. Oz has a medical talk show that has millions of followers.  He is an Oprah spin-off, so he can do no wrong in the eyes of those viewers.  One episode earlier this month had a segment called “Why you should not trust your doctor.”  His guest for this segment was Dr. Joe Mercola, a doctor that has cutting-edge but rather controversial suggestions regarding health.  He suggested to ignore the family physician’s advise to take Vitamin D supplements and to use tanning beds instead to absorb the vitamin more effectively.   After Dr. Oz expressed concern (echoed by moans in the crowd), Dr. Mercola went on to explain that the beds should be “safe”…meaning they should emit mostly UVB as opposed to the more dangerous UVA rays.  After some more discussion, the beloved Dr. Oz stated that he would “rethink” tanning beds.  He did mention that he had no interest in suggesting them for tanning, but that he felt there could be some benefits.

The American Academy of Dermatologists immediately responded with the following statement:

“The AAD is disappointed in a recent statement from Dr. Oz that he is rethinking the benefits of using tanning beds to obtain vitamin D. Research shows that using tanning beds increases your risk of skin cancer. If you would like to express your concern, post a comment on the Dr. Oz webpage (directly beneath the video). We hope you'll help the AAD correct this misinformation that may lead the public into thinking that indoor tanning is a healthy activity.”

Dr. Oz has since issued a follow-up statement including the following:

“My beliefs are firmly aligned with those of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD): Research shows that ultraviolet radiation from the sun and indoor tanning prematurely ages skin and can damage the DNA in skin cells, leading to skin cancer. The bottom line is both UVA and UVB rays cause cancer.”

The second talk show was “Chelsea Lately.”  Her guest was Pauly D of “Jersey Shore” fame.  He’s the one that seems to be most addicted to tanning.  I watched a little of an episode recently in which he came back from Italy (to film a season of the show) where they had no tanning beds.  He literally ran into a tanning salon yelling “Emergency, Emergency!” and requested to tan in their most intense booth at maximum time, and then have a second session.  On his appearance on Chelsea’s show, his skin was indeed fully tan and became the topic of conversation. 

After Chelsea suggested that he spray tan rather than use tanning beds (quoting the fact that one has a 75% more chance of getting skin cancer after using tanning beds), Pauly D responded “No, no, no…there’s Vitamin D in there!” 

Vitamin D is the tanorexic’s best defense.  Dr. Mercola suggests using tanning beds and Pauly D touts it as the healthy reason to get the glow.  But what’s the real story?

The Skin Cancer Foundation has a great section on Vitamin D.  However, one argument that the tanning industry often mentions is that such foundations are funded by sun lotion companies and thus the studies are biased.  So I consulted the Mayo Clinic website to find supposedly unbiased facts.  They mention the benefits of Vitamin D, or in other words, the reasons to have sufficient Vitamin D in your system:

“The major biologic function of vitamin D is to maintain normal blood levels of calcium and phosphorus. Vitamin D aids in the absorption of calcium, helping to form and maintain strong bones. It is used, alone or in combination with calcium, to increase bone mineral density and decrease fractures. Recently, research also suggests that vitamin D may provide protection from osteoporosis, hypertension (high blood pressure), cancer, and several autoimmune diseases.”

They mention that, yes the sun is a significant source of Vitamin D…perhaps the best source.  However, they go on to say that “as little as 10 minutes of exposure is thought to be enough to prevent (Vitamin D) deficiencies.” 

10 minutes! 

The Mayo Clinic goes on to list fish, eggs, fortified milk and cod liver oil as other sources of Vitamin D. ( I personally take Vitamin D3 supplements at the advice of my general practitioner.)  Nowhere, I repeat, NO WHERE in the Mayo Clinic information was there mention of tanning beds.

This information was repeated in other medical info websites.   Not those that are accusingly sponsored by sun screen companies, but legitimate medical organizations.  (Although the Skin Cancer Foundation IS legit…but that’s an argument for another blog)

So my conclusion (and remember, I am NOT a doctor…please consult one for real advice) is as follows:

• It's important to get plenty of Vitamin D.
• The sun is a great source of Vitamin D, but only 10 to 15 minutes a day is needed.  Any more than that (unprotected) can be dangerous and cause sun damage.
• One can boost his/her Vitamin D intake with supplements (about 1000 iu per day) and proper food.
• Tanning beds are NOT a healthy source of Vitamin D. 

The next time you hear someone advising you to use tanning beds for Vitamin D, ignore them.  And share with the D facts.

Real People of Melanoma

This post is meant to be read by those who think skin cancer is no big deal. 

"It can be cut out and then it’s gone."

"A tan is more important than worrying about simple skin cancer."

"I have to die of something, so it might as well be skin cancer."

Have you muttered any of these words when reading an article about the dangers of tanning?  Have you walked into a tanning salon, defiant of the literature received on skin cancer?  Well, feel free to continue doing so, but please take a few minutes to read this post. If you still have the urge to go tanning or avoid having that mole looked at...fine. 

What I want to do is introduce you to some real people.  I started to blog almost a year ago as a way to cope with my brother's death.  Yes, he died of melanoma (that's the nastiest skin cancer in case you didn't know)...and I promise not to make this a sappy read and bore you with his details.  But in the process of blogging and sharing my thoughts, I've come across some real people that have had real experiences with skin cancer.  These are not “models” or medical anomalies showcased as freak shows…these are real people facing different kinds of skin cancer every day. 

Christina has skin cancer on her face.  It's not any type of massively deforming tumor or obvious cancer other than a few spots on her face, but its real cancer nevertheless.  Really, it appears like it's just a condition on which one can treat with a topical cream.  And that's kind of what's Christina went through a few months ago.  She was required to apply a topical chemotherapy to her face for two weeks every year.  Yes, chemotherapy.  It's not the blood infusion type that conjures up the awful images of "real" cancer...just a simple skin application…one that peels away the face, quite literally.

She said in her blog that the pain was unreal...and at night when she slept (something she was unable to do most nights) her face literally stuck to her pillow.  It hurt to smile...it was excruciating when she yawned...it pained her to talk.  She's a teacher…so she had to teach through the pain.  Her face is mostly healed now, but the next year and round of chemotherapy will come only too soon for Christina.

Karen is a mother who noticed "an ugly freckle" on her leg.  See it here on her right calf?

Frankly, it looked like a simple mole seen on many people. She had a dermatologist look at it and discovered it was Stage 2 melanoma.  (Stage 4 is the worse).  She had the mole "simply cut out" successfully...here's what her "simple cut out" looked like right after the mole removal.

You see...when they "cut out" any skin cancer, they cut out a large area because skin cancer spreads.  It spreads FAST!  A small 3mm mole may result in a several inches cut and scar along one's leg, chest, neck or face.

Another real person is Chelsea, age 24.

She's had surgery to remove the cancer from their skin and lymph nodes, but has had to continue the fight because melanoma has a nasty habit of spreading...even when it’s thought that it’s been completely removed.  In fact, there’s as much as a 30% chance of recurrence of melanoma for those who had it before.  You can that here see that her neck and under her arm have been scarred...but she's also had to go through quite a few other procedures.

In short, it's not been a fun ride for Chelsea.  She’s doing pretty well now, she's had many days of being very sick and has had to spend a lot of time and money going to a cancer center in New York for her treatment.

Oh yeah, that's a good point...tanning sessions might be expensive, but it's nothing compared to the expense of having cancer.  We’re not talking hundreds, but thousands of dollars.  For Stage 4 melanoma patients, there’s one drug that costs $30,000 PER DOSE!  And if you think insurance will cover everything, you better think again.  Not only does each person here have to battle cancer each day, they have to battle insurance companies even more so.

Here's another lady named Tina.  I have no cancer photos of Tina...just this nice one with her and her daughter. 

Tina was doing pretty well, but then her melanoma returned, got nasty, and spread to her bladder.  She said it was a very painful experience...and it caused other complications.  Tina passed away a few months ago...leaving her daughter and husband to continue fighting the insurance companies.

I have one more lady to introduce you to...Amanda.  I admittedly haven't talked to this girl like I have the others, but her story is pretty powerful.  Here's her photo before she got skin cancer.

Here's her photo after the tumors invaded her face and body.

There’s really not much more I can add that the photos don’t already say.  You can watch this video to see more of her story.  Amanda died at age 31.

Skin cancer doesn't affect only pretty young women.  In fact, more guys suffer from the disease than women.  However, many guys just don't share their photos and thoughts as much as women do.  You know how guys are...tough as nails.  But Eric decided to share his entire battle on You Tube.

He discovered his cancer as a mole on his ankle...like so many others.  He fought for a long time, but the cancer just kept on coming.  It invaded his lungs, spine, brain and his entire body.  Now I apologize for the graphic nature of this next photo...but I wanted to show you a photo of Eric's leg...not long before he died.

Yes, that’s his leg.  His flesh was literally rotting away as his grapefruit-sized tumors penetrated his skin.  But believe it or not, Eric was "lucky" in that he became paralyzed from the chest down and couldn't feel this painful condition.

Again, these are REAL people...not rare medical subjects, but real people encountered online while I wrote my blog.  Each has his or her own story, battles and losses and some successes.  I wanted you to meet these people because even the best skin cancer Public Service Announcements convey pretty people that look normal.  They share their story of survival, but you really don’t get a good feel for the true pain they went through. 

Your chance of getting skin cancer is pretty high...about 1 in 5.  Admittedly, melanoma is the rarest form of skin cancer, so you have less chance of getting that...about 1 in 50.  But after you’ve seen these real people that have battled melanoma, it’s easy to see how one should do everything in their power to prevent it.

There are two main things to remember with regards to preventing melanoma.  First…avoid the UV rays.  It’s obviously impossible to avoid the sun completely, so wear sunscreen EVERY day…no matter the weather.  And do NOT use a tanning bed.  It’s concentrated UV rays and there’s absolutely nothing healthy about it.

Secondly, visit your dermatologist annually and check your skin yourself monthly, if not more often.  Early detection is key!  Get to know your skin and notice any changes.  If you see something suspicious, don’t wait the year…see your dermatologist now!

Wear sunscreen and get checked.  It’s that simple to avoid becoming one of the real people of melanoma.

Post Script:  I appreciate those who shared their photos for this blog post.  I believe I received permission to use all these photos over the last few months.  If I am mistaken, please contact me at fightmelanoma@live.com and I will remove ASAP.  Thank you again. 

A History Lesson

“You’ve come a long way baby!”  Remember that slogan?  It was for Virginia Slims cigarettes…a tobacco product marketed for women.  The concept was that smoking was traditionally a man’s privilege, but not a woman’s.   However with Virginia Slims, smoking was not only acceptable, but fashionable and chic.  “You’ve come a long way baby!”  (Check out the old TV ad)  It was a successful marketing campaign that echoed the Women’s Rights movement of the 60’s and 70’s and probably created many fashionably sick women.

But women weren’t the only demographic targeted for smoking needs.  Remember the Marlboro Man?  What better icon of masculinity…complete with cigarette in his mouth.

As we look back now, I think most of society realizes the fallacy of such claims.  Smoking leads to lung cancer or other devastating health conditions…it was a bad thing and still is.  Of the friends I have that smoke, every one of them has muttered “I need to quit someday” as they light one up.  It’s a bad habit…it’s a proven medical killer…and even the smokers know it’s a bad thing.  My mom smoked practically all her life.  Bel-Air was her brand.  She died in 2005 of lung cancer.

I know this is a skin cancer and melanoma blog site, but it’s also Lung Cancer Awareness Month.  This cancer is the biggest cancer killer.  And it’s possibly the nastiest of all.  Please keep those we’ve lost or those struggling with the disease in your thoughts and offer support of some sort.  And don’t blame them for smoking…it used to be the fashionable thing to do.

I’d usually stop my thoughts here, but I’d like for you to think about lung cancer a little longer…and the parallels to melanoma.  Smoking was fashionable.  Tanning IS fashionable.  The tobacco industry was quick to point out the “cool” aspects of smoking.  The tanning industry currently touts the cosmetic benefits of a glowing tan.  Years of awareness campaigning and class action lawsuits made all of society realize the truth about smoking…even the current smokers realize it’s a bad habit.  What about tanning and its relationship to melanoma?  Is it time to repeat history?

Occupy Tanning, Inc.

I’m not an economist…if I were I’d probably not be living paycheck to paycheck.  But I suppose the whole thing with “Occupy Wall Street” is that the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots…the 99% versus the 1%...is what’s under scrutiny.  I guess they’re protesting to create change and a wealthier society.  I’m sure it’s far more complicated than that, but that’s my general take.  But as interesting as some of these protests are, I witnessed and took part in another impromptu “Occupy” campaign.

A few days ago, someone posted parts of a Q&A page from a tanning company’s website.  Tropi Tan shares a lot of “information” about the tanning process.  Here’s what they say about “why do we always hear that tanning is bad?”

Tanning is an important issue to the dermatology industry because skin cancer represents the only subject that its lobbyists can promote as critical or life threatening. Unfortunately, in their zeal to scare consumers into their offices, lobbyists for the dermatology industry have twisted the facts and exaggerated many research findings. They continue to mislead the public about the dangers of tanning, whether indoors or outdoors.

There is also the issue of the “Almighty Dollar.” The fear of the sun generated by dermatologists feeds a multi-billion dollar industry lead by huge special interest groups who conduct and promote most of the research on skin cancer. Lobbyists for pharmaceutical firms that sell billions of dollars worth of sunscreens and SPF cosmetics have teamed with the dermatology industry to promote a misinformed campaign of sun abstinence.

Conversely, there is no major industry except the indoor tanning industry that makes money by promoting the positive effects of sunshine. The indoor tanning industry consists of small companies that can’t match the marketing power of the multi-billion dollar "sunscare coalition."

Over the last few years, thousands of indoor tanning professionals have supported an organization – the Indoor Tanning Association – which was founded “to protect the freedom of individuals to achieve a suntan, via natural or artificial light.” This organization is currently working to develop a national advertising campaign that will increase public awareness of “smart” tanning, the importance of avoiding sunburn, and the many positive effects of regular, controlled UV exposure.

Nowhere on this “information” page do they mention that…um…well…tanning is bad because it significantly increases the risk of skin cancer.

So, where does the “Occupy” part come in?  Once this was posted on Facebook within the linked group of melanoma warriors and “mole mates,” it spread fast like…well…you know.  One person suggested visiting the company’s Facebook page and giving them a piece of our collective mind.  And boy did we ever!  Within minutes, their page was visited by many folks with some sort of relationship with melanoma.  Facts were posted.  Opinions were shared.  And the company’s “Get an hour’s tan for only $1.05” really came under fire.  For a little while there, we all Occupied Tanning, Inc.  Not surprising at all, our comments were all deleted by the next morning.  But I’d like to think that someone read one or two comments and thought twice about tanning.

Personally, I wasn't trying to put anyone out of business...but merely offering the other side of the tanning story to anyone that might be considering a $1.05 tanning session.  The tanning industry has a legal right to stay in business, but the consumers have the right to all the facts as well.

Many people will see the Occupy Wall Street protests on TV and switch the channel…others will observe more casually like I have.  But one or two key folks might hear their message and take action to make change.  The protestors won’t be the one’s making the change…but they are the people attempting to inspire change.  And that’s where change starts…from ideas and inspiration.  Perhaps our little “Occupy Tanning, Inc.” inspired one person that could lead to a healthier society.

Keep sharing the message!

A (Hopeful) Sign of Things to Come...

I apologize for having not posted many thoughts lately.  As I alluded to in a previous post, we had a “work force adjustment” at my company.  Luckily, I survived the cut, but my workload has near doubled as a result.  I have been simply too physically and mentally exhausted to keep up any fresh thoughts on this blog or my Facebook page.  But things are stabilizing now, so I should be back to my blogging self in no time.

I want to share something quite exciting.  This past Saturday, my family and I went to our family haircut.  As I mentioned before in yet another post (wow, I never realized I shared so much of my personal life here), my wife, kids and I all visit the hair stylist every six weeks or so as a group.   I had a little dilemma in that it was a hair AND tanning salon.  We really like our stylist Shannon, but there was something about the tanning booths in the back room that gave me the willies.  However, this past weekend, we were greeted with the following sign inside the shop:

          “Sorry to announce we will no longer be offering tanning…”

Sure enough, I saw that the “Legacy” and other tanning equipment sitting in the back unplugged.  My immediate reaction was to say, “Yea!”

I asked Shannon why they decided to quit the tanning business.  She went on to explain that there were three reasons.  First, there’s the recent 10% federal tax on tanning.  Secondly, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Radiation Protection apparently has significantly increased the fees to operate radiation-inducing equipment.  And finally, the recent introduced legislation to require teens to have a doctor’s prescription to use a tanning bed was the last straw.  Oddly enough, although that legislation sits in limbo, it still had a direct effect on closing down one tanning operation.

A part of me was a little disappointed at first in that this was a small local business being adversely affected by government regulations.  It’s tough enough for small businesses to make it nowadays, so I felt some sadness that their livelihood may have been affected.  But when I asked how much business was lost, I was told, “not much…just spotty business around prom time.”  My guilt flittered away immediately and I happy to know that (a) a local business will most likely continue and (b) a few prom-aged girls might be unknowingly spared a horrible disease.

A fourth reason for turning off the beds was cited:  the big-named tanning salons in town.  These are the places that truly need to be regulated more…but we’ll take one victory at a time.

Finally, let me just say that Shannon is not the business owner, so the decisions one way or the other were not hers.  But I found two comments she made during my haircut rather interesting.  First, “I’m kinda glad those things are turned off…I have to wonder how safe it was to work here.”  And secondly, “my husband’s mother (I think) died of melanoma…so I’m not unhappy to see them go.”

Neither am I…neither am I.

The Gorgeous Tan?

The other day, I was at the grocery store when the male teenaged check-out clerk looked past my shoulder and muttered, “Wow!”  I turned to follow his drooling gaze and saw an attractive young woman walking into the store.  She was wearing a light blue spaghetti-strap top, white summer shorts, and flip-flops; had short dark hair; and sported a gorgeous tan (with tell-tale tan lines near her neck).

Oops…I said a bad word there…didn’t I?  Put down the heavy objects and let me continue (this includes you Chelsea).

I admit that I always had a “thing” about tanned girls.  I also had an attraction to freckled girls as well.  I grew up in a “baby-oil as sun-block” environment, so I pretty much everyone of the opposite sex was either tanned or freckled in the summer.  Basically, I was programmed to appreciate sun-kissed skin.  And this was my initial impression of this lady walking into the grocery store.

But then the black wristband twisted my arm a bit and I reassessed my thoughts.  Did I really think she had a gorgeous tan, or was she a gorgeous girl with a tan?  As I think back now, I was as attracted to certain girls in high school and college in the sweater-bundled winter months in West Virginia as I was during the summer months.  It wasn’t the tan after all.

My point is that one doesn’t need a tan to look attractive.  Take a look at these two famous celebrities:

© http://www.mahgoud.blogspot.com/ and ©www.imbd.com

Can you imagine what Nicole Kidman or Anne Hathaway would look like with a tan?  Neither can I.  Their natural tone is so incredibly beautiful that anything other than “natural” would be a negative distraction.

But it’s not just about being pale.  Can you imagine these beautiful women with unnaturally lighter skin?

©www.billboard.com and ©www.unseensports.blogpot.com

No matter the shade, dark or light, it's the natrual look that's best.

I’m not the only one to think this.  I ran across a website asking which of Angelina Jolie’s “look” below was preferred:



© http://www.damnimcute.com/

A whopping 70.74% of the voters chose the “pale,” more natural look.

Again, it’s all about NATURAL tones.  One should embrace one’s natural skin tone.  Staying out of the sun, AND TANNING BEDS, helps keep your skin naturally beautiful.  It also reduces skin aging and inhibits the formation of wrinkles.  Keeping one’s skin naturally beautiful might even make this crew a little more attractive:



© http://www.fanpop.com/



Well…maybe.

Remember, getting a tan just makes you more tan…it’s doesn’t make you more beautiful.

An Awful "Legacy"



A potential legacy of cancer



If you recall from an earlier post, I get my hair cut at a local salon that also owns UV tanning equipment.  I returned again today (wearing my BITNP t-shirt) and decided to poke around a bit (with my camera) while the rest of my family was getting their locks trimmed.  I’ll have a more detailed post later, but I had to share this one discovery.

There’s one tanning system they have called “The Legacy.”  It’s a “tanning tube” in which one inserts their legs only as they sit in a raised chair at one end.  I suppose this is catered towards the female clients that want those glowing tanned legs as they wear summer shorts.

Legacy. 

Can you believe it?  The only legacy this machine will make is an increased risk and occurrence of skin cancer!  Considering that 38 percent of melanoma on women is discovered on the legs, this is an appalling apparatus.  I just couldn’t believe it!

Again, I’ll have more to share later on solariums, but I just wanted to share this ironic and shocking discovery.

Ugh.