Naujas blog.lrytas.lt blog’as :)

The most successful campaign in the world of “black marketing”?
In July 2009 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), organized in the framework of the World Health Organization (WHO), through the medical journal “The Lancet Oncology” and a number of press releases, announced a “hot news” regarding the classification of instruments used for tanning operating on the principle of light emission in the UV range, as belonging to group 1 to “carcinogenic to humans”.
This statement marked the beginning of a new wave of articles and reports in many newspapers, magazines and other periodicals, as well as on TV channels around the world. Many of the articles and reports went far beyond the original sources of information because of the excessive desire to reporters to make a “sensation” of this “news”. Apparently, none of the reporters did not bother to go beyond the press release, because if they did this, they have been able to find the following facts:
First. The decision is not based on fresh research, and to review, dated July 2006, compiled on the basis of multiple studies conducted during the 90-ies and early 2000’s. A closer look at the method used in this review (a good starting point may serve the following link: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2009/sunbeds_uvradiation.php), shows that something was conducted more or less reminiscent of the Internet search on scientific documents using key search words such as: “an artificial UV radiation” • “solarium” • “melanoma” • “Skin Cancer”. Here’s why it is not surprising that the “review” led to a number of “evidence” in favor of a strong relationship between these search words. It is almost the same as searching for keywords “water” and “sink” probably would have shown a very strong relationship between them and would be an indication that water is actually a major cause of drowning, and so should therefore limit access to public pools.
Second. All studies reported a positive effect of UV rays (many such studies, despite the fact that almost every week, added more and more), were simply excluded from this review.
Third. “Solar Radiation” long attributed to the first group of carcinogens. In the same way as alcohol products, and many other more “well-known” substances such as mustard gas. Therefore, if the reasoning, since the UV radiation from the sun (or at least the part that reaches the Earth) and the radiation from a tanning lamp – practically identical, the UV radiation from solariums should refer to the same group. In support of this inference should be added that almost fanatical attacks on the solarium (in conjunction with the blatant promotion of sunscreen and tanning facilities), the impression of a certain ripping out of context, especially given that the actual evidence for such charges – no.

Prof Adèle Green
Fourth. At the time of this review, Chairman of the Working Group on artificial ultraviolet (UV) radiation and skin cancer, working as part of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Professor Adele Green of Australia, sponsored by the group L’Oreal, the world’s largest supplier of lotions to sunscreens and tanning facilities mass market (See the link below and also here: http://www.qimr.edu.au/research/labs/adeleg/index.html).
This also explains the intense and expensive PR-campaign on the “news” about going tanning in the first group of carcinogens and urgent advice on the use of sunscreens and tools for tanning. Even the tobacco, which is obviously of no benefit to health is not received such a negative public relations, as in this case, commercial interests would have been on the side of smokers.
Fifth. WHO recommendations from 2005 have not changed (which is natural, because it does not appear any new “evidence” on the UV radiation).
Whatever the case, all of the above does not eliminate the strong negative impact from the last PR-campaign against tanning. In this case the doctors and scientists who have found strong evidence that UV radiation not only good for your health, but also necessary, no rich companies who can sponsor their PR, what makes this debate is very one-sided.
Gosudarsvennye authorities in most countries, quickly and seriously exposed to the recommendations of WHO and reports in the media, but so far have not shown any interest in, to take account of recent discoveries demonstrating the benefits of UV radiation. (For example, when we see the recommendations for regular blood tests, determining the level of vitamin D in the blood? Tracking of vitamin D, is perhaps more important than tracking cholesterol.)
Representatives of the tanning industry and you, dear lovers and enthusiasts tan, should use every opportunity to urge the media to take responsibility and act with unverified reports, where open-sided view on the research question. There are so many reports about the need for UV radiation for most functions of the human body, these facts are simply impossible to ignore. On the territory of Northern Europe (at latitudes north of Paris), people simply can not get enough vitamin D from natural sunlight for most of the year. If there is strong evidence to suggest that the single most important and safe source of vitamin D is ultraviolet radiation, continuous campaign against the tanning is very counter-productive in relation to general health.
We will achieve much better results and greater harmony if we are together we will educate community and promote the idea that moderate, responsible and controlled (by professionals, not government decree), a tan is good, and nothing else.
REF.: Item: The use of sunscreens is safe and effective approach to preventing skin cancer
Journal “Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev” 2007, 16 (1910): 1921 – 2; Received 5/25/07, accepted 6/28/07.
Conflict of interest: Adele C. Green currently receives funding from L’Oreal to conduct a research project and has at its disposal, research staff, and paid the same company. She is also co-authored several documents that are referenced in this article.
Requests for reprints: Adele C. Green, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Royal Brisbane Hospital Post Office, Brisbane, 4029, Queensland, Australia.
Phone: 61-7-3362-0234, Fax: 011-61-7-3845-3503. E-mail: adeleG@qimr.edu.au
Copyright D 2007 American Association for Cancer Research.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0477