Posts Tagged ‘regulations’

Skin Cancer Prevention: The Dangers of Tanning Beds

Friday, July 1st, 2011

 

Image from hometanningbed.com

In my last two posts, I have examined the various types of skin cancer, their prevalence and survivability rates, and some prevention methods. Today, I will focus on another major risk factor for skin cancer. The use of tanning beds or “indoor tanning” greatly increases a person’s risk of developing skin cancer. It is a completely voluntary exposure to UV radiation, and yet many people choose to expose themselves despite all of the risks.

Known Dangers of Tanning Beds

Here are just a few statistics about indoor tanning from the Skin Cancer Foundation:

  • “Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is a proven human carcinogen. Currently tanning beds are regulated by the FDA as Class I medical devices, the same designation given elastic bandages and tongue depressors.
  • The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an affiliate of the World Health Organization, includes ultraviolet (UV) tanning devices in its Group 1, a list of the most dangerous cancer-causing substances. Group 1 also includes agents such as plutonium, cigarettes, and solar UV radiation.
  • Frequent tanners using new high-pressure sunlamps may receive as much as 12 times the annual UVA dose compared to the dose they receive from sun exposure.
  • Ten minutes in a sunbed matches the cancer-causing effects of 10 minutes in the Mediterranean summer sun.
  • Nearly 30 million people tan indoors in the U.S. every year; 2.3 million of them are teens.
  • On an average day, more than one million Americans use tanning salons.
  • Seventy-one percent of tanning salon patrons are girls and women aged 16-29.
  • Indoor ultraviolet (UV) tanners are 74 percent more likely to develop melanoma than those who have never tanned indoors.
  • People who use tanning beds are 2.5 times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma and 1.5 times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma.
  • The indoor tanning industry has an annual estimated revenue of $5 billion.”

Internal references omitted

 

Horrifically, it is mainly young people choosing to use these devices despite the greatly increased risk of melanoma and other skin cancers. Given the enormous financial incentive to service young people – the industry cannot be expected to regulate itself. If they can make $5 billion dollars a year in revenue with a largely young female population, why would they stop? (Aside from morality of course…)

How to Protect the Skin – Even if You Don’t Want To

From a social perspective, there need to be some changes to the value our society places on certain skin color and beauty. This is outside of the realm of this post – but what a shame that in this century, men and woman would still rather expose themselves to harmful radiation than live life with their natural coloring (or lack thereof).

From an education perspective, I think that public awareness and an increased focus on education must continue to be one prong to battle this problem. However, clearly warnings alone are not enough. This is exemplified by a recent news story about a now 23-year-old woman who visited tanning salons three to five times a week starting when she was 16 years old.  This young woman, who despite knowing the risks of tanning continued to use tanning beds until 2009, had to endure surgeries, drug therapies and over a year of painful treatment at the age of twenty-one for the advanced melanoma that had spread to her lymph nodes. Luckily, she is now cancer-free, but living with a greatly increased risk of developing another cancer. This is a cautionary tale, but it is also an example of the invincibility thinking of many young people that makes the risks seem lower than they really are to using tanning beds.

Legal Options – Regulation

So what remains? The tanning salon industry has a financial disincentive towards preventing skin cancers, the young patrons of these establishments may not understand the risks and consequences, yet the individuals and society are going to pay the price of devastating illness, high cost medical treatments and people’s lives if the current use of tanning beds continues. That is where the legal side of this post enters. There are a number of states that have started to regulate the use of these tanning beds – at least for minors. Most states do not regulate these very heavily. The National Conference of State Legislatures has compiled regulations from many states on their website. There are a combination of approaches which generally include either banning the use of tanning beds by very young children and teens (typically under 14 or 16 – but few states have an outright ban) and/or requiring parental consent for the use by children below a certain age (typically 18, occasionally 16). Some of these consent statutes require the parent to be present (in person) to provide consent. Others allow written consent or require the parent to be present only one time in the year. Do you think that these statutes are sufficient? Should the requirements involve vivid pictural warnings like the new requirements for cigarrettes?

In Maryland, Howard County is a leader in regulating this industry. In Howard County, minors under 18 years of age are not permitted to use tanning devices without a doctor’s note stating a medical reason and allowed frequency.  These rules are not subject to a parent’s consent. Many states legislators have proposed tougher legislation in the past few years to increase the regulations on this industry across the country, but few have been successful.

Your Thoughts?

What do you think should happen with the tanning industry? Do you think that there should be an outright ban for any minors using these devises? What about adults? There are still lots of tanning customers who are young adults who are over 18. What can be done to protect them from the increased risks of skin cancer? Is public education sufficient? Could it be done better?

Related Posts:

Skin Cancer: Types, Causes and How to Protect Yourself

Skin Cancer Prevention: Will New FDA Rules Help?

Skin Cancer Videos

 

Newest Word on Crib Safety: Ban the Bumpers?

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Which crib bedding would you choose? Aesthetic or safe?

In the newest topic regarding crib safety, Maryland is considering regulations to ban the sale of crib bumpers. For many years, more and more emphasis has been placed on infants sleeping in safe cribs without any additional “stuff” in them. This has included the elimination of lots of former nursery staples. Baby blankets, stuffed animals, pillows and other loose items have been banned from the crib by safety experts for years. As requirements for cribs have required slats that are closer together, the utility of using a bumper to help a child from getting stuck between crib slats has been eliminated. More recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has developed even newer crib safety standards, including eliminating the use of drop-sides, and warned against the use of sleep positioners. Yet, despite the advice to put babies to sleep only on their backs in cribs empty of everything except a well fitting mattress and fitted sheet, many parents and caregivers persist in using other items in cribs. Now, with an increasing number of deaths associated with crib bumpers, Maryland is considering a stronger stance.

Danger of Crib Bumpers

The concern about crib bumpers is that there have been infant deaths associated with suffocation or strangulation and the use of crib bumpers. Some of the deaths are directly attributable to the bumpers (for instance a child found with their head wrapped in the ties of the bumper or their face pressed into the side of the bumper), while others are only potentially related to the bumper use but not definitively so (for instance, children whose death are classified as SIDS, but where bumpers were in use in the crib at the time of death and may have been a contributing factor in the death). This makes the discussion of the dangers muddy – with manufacturers claiming that bumpers are safe and advocates warning against their use to protect against suffocation.

Potential Ban on Sale of Bumpers

When the Baltimore Sun reported on the potential regulations, they mentioned something that gave me pause. They explained that if Dr. Sharfstein, secretary of the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, does decide to regulate this issue, the regulations will impact only the sale, not the use of the bumpers. While this makes sense from a policy perspective, the goal is not to punish parents who may not be aware of the safety risks, and from a enforceability perspective, the state cannot possibly enforce a regulation that requires knowledge of whether bumpers are being used in individual homes, the regulation of the sale of the item is going to have some drawbacks.

Will a State Ban Save Lives?

So here are my questions. Will regulations against the sale of these bumpers in Maryland make any difference in saving lives? In this day of internet shopping and wide availability of items through catalogues and easy interstate travel, are Maryland families going to forgo the crib bumper because they cannot be purchased in the local baby store, or are they still going to be buying the bumper with a set of nursery items on Amazon or through a national baby store? Will Internet or national companies without a store presence in Maryland be punished for selling a bumper to a person with a Maryland address? If so, then perhaps the word will get out that these items are dangerous and should not be used. If not, will parents even realize that the goal of the regulation is actually to curb the use of the bumpers. Either way, I guess that by decreasing the number of bumpers in Maryland homes, safety will be increased and perhaps over time, awareness will be increased and other states may follow suit.

Getting the Word Out

My other concern is that if there are parents who are still using bumpers, blankets or other items in their babies’ cribs, is the issue one of parent education? Perhaps the real emphasis needs to be on wider parental awareness of the safety issue. There are lots of great resources available to learn how to put infants to sleep safely:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNekf5P9_Yg&feature=youtu.be

Since the early 1990s, the emphasis has been on having infants sleep on their backs. This has lead to a dramatic decrease in SIDS deaths since that time. The “Back to Sleep” campaign began in 1994 and continues to this day.  However, when reading a 2005 paper from the AAP, I was surprised to read that SIDS deaths are more likely to occur when a baby who is used to sleeping on their back is placed to sleep on their stomach. This suggests that education needs to be of all potential caregivers since an occasional babysitter, grandparent or child care provider who is unfamiliar with the recommendations and the child’s normal sleep position may place the child to sleep on their stomach and cause real risk.

AAP has made many recommendations since 2005 including that children sleep in cribs with only a fitted sheet and without any additional soft bedding. These recommendations have varied somewhat over time on the use of bumpers and sleep positioners. However, the overall advice seems to remain the same – eliminate all soft bedding items. Despite these recommendations, there are still images in popular media of nurseries complete with cribs with soft bedding.

What changes are still needed?

What changes are needed to get the word out? Do you think that there needs to be a stronger effort to change the marketing images for infant products? Do you think that a ban on the sale of bumpers will have a significant impact on child safety? What about an education campaign focusing on caregivers, grandparents and day care providers?

Related Posts:

Over Two Million Cribs Recalled…What About Yours?

Infant Safety – drop-down crib hazard; CPSC issues recall

Generation 2 Worldwide and “ChildESIGNS” Drop Side Crib Brands Recalled; Three Infant Deaths Reported

Consumer Product Safety Commission vows to crack down on defective cribs – washingtonpost.com

 

Images from: sidscenter.org, potterybarnkids.com