So what do you do when your teenage child approaches you about going to an indoor tanning salon? Do you let them make their own decision? Do you forbid it? It’s a pretty tough question. Sometimes forbidding things, makes them want to do it even more. Most places will require anyone under 18 to have parental consent, but that consent will not stop someone who really wants to do it. Its a difficult question with no easy answer that’s going to work for everyone.
ABC News recently had an article entitled “Teen Tanning: Indoor Sizzle Can Overcome Parental Consent Laws” that investigated the issue about how much effect laws involving parental consent needing to be obtained were having. Their conclusion was pretty much how I feel, that the parental consent laws were not really having the desired effect. Partly due to lax enforcement, partly due to parents giving their consent too easily. Either way not much was changing.
study published in the Archives of Dermatology this week, showing that, despite laws, researchers posing as 15-year-olds who had never tanned could, over the phone, get permission to tan at a few salons across the country without parental consent. The study estimated that 90 percent of salons in the U.S. require parental consent.Researchers also found that at most salons they called, they could begin tanning more often than the government recommendation of three times a week. In 71 percent of the facilities, they could tan every day right away, despite the risks of melanoma and other skin cancers.
One part they left out there is that in regards to the ones that didn’t ask for consent, the study only called up the tanning salons on the phone posing as a 15 year old. Who knows if when they got there they would then be informed that they need consent. Its like any business, you want to get them in the door first.
Medical professionals then fired off some shots..
“The laws as they are currently written are not strong enough to keep teens from tanning,” said Joni Mayer, a professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at San Diego State University and an author of the study. “Part of the reason is parents are giving their consent [to tan].”
“As a medical professional subject to intense regulation, it is amazing that the tanning industry is allowed to deliver intensive ultraviolet light to minors with a minimal amount of oversight and enforcement,” said Dr. Seth J. Orlow, chairman of dermatology at New York University School of Medicine.
The Indoor Tanning Association then had to fire back, as is their job and they have done in the past….
“What is not being highlighted by the authors of this study is that the vast majority of tanning salons require parental consent before allowing minors to tan, regardless of whether or not state law requires them to do so. The tanning industry works with parents to ensure that minors are using sunbeds moderately and responsibly,” said Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association, in a statement.
So we’re back at square one, what do you do when your teen asks you for the consent? I think the best plan is to sit down with them and present to them the damaging effects that indoor tanning can have. Treating your teenager like their opinions and wishes are important is a very valuable tool in parenting. Let them explain to you why they should do it, and then explain to them why they should not. Presented with all the information against indoor tanning, you would think that they would make the right decision. Also present them with some alternatives that might be better for both sides. Possibly a suggestion of spray tanning might be enough to appease your teenager.
Sometimes though, they are not going too, after all they are teenagers. That’s why its important as a parent to be able to say no when your trying to protect their best interests. I know it can be hard, especially when they are doing everything else right. Its something that has to be done though. Why let someone you care about purposefully do something that is harmful when you have the control.
The woman in the story is a perfect example. Here’s a girl who started tanning at age 14 when her parents signed the consent form. Now 10 years later she has melanoma and wishes her parents hadn’t given the consent. Of course, hers is just one example, but there are many. As are there many who have come out fine as I’m sure a teenager will point out. Is the risk really worth the reward though, I have to say no.
If you don’t love dogs, its because you’ve never had one. I believe that everyone that has had a dog can’t help but fall in love with them. They are called man’s best friend for a reason, and the title does indeed fit well. People treat their dogs just like another member of the family, and that means that you have to think about protecting them. Remember, a dog is just like a small child in that sense. They can’t make the decisions to protect and care for themselves, so the responsibility falls on their owners.
It might not be the first thing that you think about, but dogs do indeed get skin cancer as well. You might think that they have plenty of protection from the sun due to all that hair they have, but that is not necessarily the case. Skin tumors do occur in dogs, and these may become cancerous. Skin cancer is the most common cancer among dogs.
Just like with humans, light colored dogs are most susceptible to damage from the sun’s rays. Dogs also have areas that you don’t think about such as their noses and pads of their feet that are not protected by hair.
There are three types of skin cancer that can affect dogs; malignant melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and mast cell tumors. For dogs the most common form is the mast cell tumors. These occur in the mast cells of the immune system.
The good news is that when caught early, skin cancer in dogs is very treatable. With dogs its more about what to do after the fact than all the preventive measures that we take as humans. Yes, they do have sunscreens for dogs and I guess you could get a dog to wear some sort of hat to protect itself from the sun. However, the more practical approach is to just check out your dog to make sure you can catch the skin cancer early if it does develop.
You can check out your dog the same as you would your child. Just take a close look all over their body every once in awhile and see if you notice anything that is different than last time. Much like with children, you can make a game out of it to try and keep your pooch entertained as you do the examine. If you do notice anything new, or something that’s changed since the last time you checked, then I would consult your veterinarian about it.
We talked about the best cities for your skin on here, so its only naturally that we would write about the worst cities for your skin as well. I decided to do the best first, because I think we should focus more on the positive side of things. That being said, the negative side still deserves a mention.
The same criteria was used in picking the worst cities, as when they picked the best ones. The cities were studied by the people over at TotalBeauty.com, they took into account things like pollution, percentage of smokers, number of tanning salons, sunshine levels and humidity levels. Some of the list were places you’d expect, while others I found quite surprising.
Beth Mayall-Traglia, editor of TotalBeauty.com, summed up their intent with releasing this list by saying “Our study goes beyond just ‘outing’ bad skin cities — it draws national focus to the deadly skin sins — smoking, sun exposure, pollution. So while you can’t control the pollution level in your city, you can do something — you can wear SPF, wear a hat, stop smoking. That’s our aim here.”
One of the most surprising cities to be included on this list to me, was Portland, Maine. I’d always thought of that town as a great mecca of old school Maine charm, and while it might be that it has a lot of negatives going for it as far as your skin goes. Smoking and skin cancer rates are both very high in Portland, as well as they have an extraordinarily high number of tanning salons clocking in at 25 per every 100,000 people. These factors contributed to it making the list.
Macon, Georgia was also fairly surprising to see on the list. The main thing that counted against Macon is something that’s out of their control, the excessive humidity there. At an average of 88% humidity, Macon is one of the most humid cities in the country. Your skin does need humidity, but not that much. When your humid, you sweat, and when your body sweats oil and dirt can get clogged in your pores basically suffocating your skin.
Charleston, West Virginia clocked in at #6, mainly due to the fact that it is the city with the most tanning salons in the entire country. When I think of fake tan people, I don’t really think of people from West Virginia but apparently I should. Charleston has a staggering 34 tanning salons per 100,000 people.
Taking home the top prize as the worst city to live in for your skin in America, is the lovely town of Bakersfield, California. Bakersfield received this distinction based largely on the fact that The American Lung Association ranks Bakersfield as the city with the most year-round particle pollution. That can’t be very good for your skin, or anything else on your body for that matter. Also this high rate of pollution is coupled by the very dry, stagnant weather that means there’s nothing really blowing that pollution away, it just sits there. Bakersfield is also the 2nd most ozone polluted city, and that causes more UV rays to seep through to a city that is stiflingly sunny and hot already. All this contributes to your skin wanting you to live anywhere, but Bakersfield.
The 13 Worst Skin Cities:
#13 – Portland, Maine
#12 – Tacoma, Washington
#11 – Macon, Georgia
#10 – Tampa, Florida
#9 – Kansas City, Missouri
#8 – Detroit, Michigan
#7 – Cleveland, Ohio
#6 – Charleston, West Virginia
#5 – Phoenix, Arizona
#4 – Las Vegas, Nevada
#3 – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
#2 – Houston, Texas
#1 – Bakersfield, California
Sometimes its hard to differentiate between things that are actually going on, and what is just blown up because of the fact that the media chooses to pay heed to it. Some say that skin cancer falls into that category.
ABC News had an article this week about this issue entitled “Is There Really a Skin Cancer Epidemic?”. This article talks about the debate of whether the increase in cases of skin cancer is just about a change in the way that doctors are diagnosing the disease.
It’s a fact that you can not dispute that over the last two decades the number of melanoma cases has doubled, and continues to rise each and every year. This is a fact that the media, as well as anti-skin cancer campaigns have latched onto as proof of just how dire the situation is. The question however is just what the contributing factors are to this increase? Some people doubt whether or not there are actually any more cases of melanoma than in the past.
“The main message is to be cautious about overstating messages about a melanoma epidemic to the public and media,” study co-author Dr. Nick J. Levell from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK, told Reuters Health in an email. “Such behavior will tend to induce unnecessary anxiety and behavior that may cause distress and harm.”
Dr. Levell and colleagues had a hunch that some of the “epidemic” was due to the fact that many cases of a skin condition known as benign melanocytic nevi – a type of mole – were now being diagnosed as malignant melanoma.
So they did a study to look at this issue. They examined the diagnoses of melanoma from 1991-2004 in the East Angilla region of the United Kingdom. What they discovered was that the rate did in fact grow. From 9.39 cases per 100,000 up to 13.91 cases per 100,000. However, the difference was almost entirely made up of early stage cases, the later stage diagnoses remained constant. At the same time the rates of death increased from 2.16 to 2.54, but pretty much everyone with an early stage case survived.
From the studies conclusions they determined that many of the cases that were now being diagnosed as melanoma, would have been diagnosed as benign melanocytic nevi in the past.
“The trend is to some degree a product of society’s trend toward increasing litigation and physicians’ increasing fear of making a mistake,” Dr. Levell added. “Neither of these is likely to be reversed. Recognition of the phenomenon does however enable the public and physicians to compensate for it to some extent.”
The findings of this study will be published in the September 2009 issue of the British Journal of Dermatology. If you believe their conclusions, then the rate of melanoma has been pretty much constant.
That doesn’t mean that there’s no need to take precautions. All it means is that people are just as likely to contract melanoma now as they were 20 years ago. This tells me that we still have a lot of work to do. I would think that the number should be decreasing due to all the information and protective measures we have these days. Sadly, that’s not the case. Until we get headed in the right direction I say go ahead media and spin the facts any which way you want. We need to increase awareness.
Skin care is a big issue with people and that’s one of the main reasons that this blog was created. I think its accepted as fact that people need to think about and take care of their skin. That being said when I looked at a recent list of the top ten skin cities, I felt that the locations left a lot to be desired.
I came across the list over on the Fox channel out of Lubbock, TX’s website. In their article entitled “Top 10 Best Skin Cities”, they make a list of the top places to live taking into account pollution levels, amount of sunshine, tanning beds per capita, humidity, number of smokers, stress, diet and more.
I’m sad to say that even though I care a whole lot about my skin, most of the places on the list are not in my top choices of places to live. I do try and protect myself from the sun as much as possible, but that being said I do love the sun and all the good times it has to offer.
Some of the list I did find quite surprising. The one I was surprised at the most was New York City managing to crack the list at #6. You would think that with all the pollution that comes naturally with living in the biggest city in the country that it would be very harmful for your skin to live there. They imply that this fact is cancelled out by their lack of tanning salons, low levels of sunshine, average humidity, and low prevalence of skin cancer. This may be true, but I still don’t think my skin would be throwing me a parade for living there anytime soon.
The best place in my opinion is sitting at #3, Honolulu, Hawaii. Now that’s a place that my beach loving self could see myself living. They say that despite the strong sun that exists there in Hawaii, the fact that the weather there doesn’t change much causes your skin to get used to the conditions. All you have to do is remember to bring your sunscreen with you. That’s somewhere where I think my skin and the rest of my body could be happy. Unfortunately, I don’t think my pocketbook would appreciate it that much as the cost of living there is astronomical.
#1 on their list is the lovely city of Anchorage, Alaska. That place has got it all. It has almost non existent pollution levels, modearte humidty, and an extreamly low rate of skin cancer. The only problem is that its freezing most of the time. That to me seems to be quite a big problem. I also do like at the least seeing the sun a lot of the time and on average Anchorage is only sunny 41% of the time.
The full list of cities on the list is….
#10 – Cheyenne, Wyoming
#9 – San Francisco, CA
#8 – Washington D.C.
#7 – San Antonio, TX
#6 – New York, NY
#5 – Billings, Montana
#4 – Flagstaff, Arizona
#3 – Honolulu, Hawaii
#2 – Bismark, North Dakota
#1 – Anchorage, Alaska
So, I’m sorry skin, but it looks like where I live can not be based solely on what’s best for you. I tend to be jealous that way. My two favorite states of Florida (where I live now) and California managed to have a single city on the list between them. That being the northern California city of San Francisco. Guess I’ll just have to stick with sunscreen and protective clothing as the best way to keep my skin safe and living in harmony with my friend the sun.
