Young, rich women getting more deadly skin cancers

[n2doc]

By Deborah Kotz

Heart disease, diabetes, and breast and prostate cancer all strike and kill poor, disadvantaged minorities in disproportionate numbers. Not true, though, for skin cancer. It turns out that the deadliest form, melanoma, occurs far more often in non-Hispanic white teens and women living in the richest areas of town. And rates are going up.
The researchers who discovered the link, in a finding published Monday in the Archives of Dermatology blame it on the fact that tans are like French manicures -- signs of wealth and status. Who's using the tanning salons and hitting the beach resorts all year round? Why, those who can afford to, of course.

But they're paying the price by upping their risk of melanoma. Teen girls and young women in the richest neighborhoods have nearly six times the likelihood of being diagnosed with melanoma compared with those from the poorest neighborhoods. The incidence was 0.6 per 100,000 people at the lowest end of the socioeconomic spectrum compared with 3.5 per 100,000 people for those at the highest end.

"Affluence tends to affect leisure and vacation time, travel to regions where ultraviolet radiation differs from that of the home area, and sunbathing attitudes and practices," write the study authors from the Cancer Prevention Institute of California. But that's speculation, the authors concede; richer folks might also go to doctors more and thus may be more likely to have their melanomas diagnosed.

So what's the solution? Discouraging tanning, of course. The study authors recommend widespread campaigns to encourage avoidance of the midday sun; building shade structures at beaches and open-air shopping malls; promoting the use of sunscreen; legislation to ban tanning beds for those under 18.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blog/dailydose/2011/03/young_rich_wome.html

[tabatha]

1. I would think they could afford sunscreen.

I wonder how many got skin cancer despite using sunscreen?

[pnwmom]

3. They can also afford tanning beds as teens.

Which significantly increases one's risk for skin cancer.

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. Sunscreen sold in the US

is not required by law to protect against both uva and uvb rays. Given the regulatory oversight it is possible to use sunscreen and still get skin cancer.

[Warpy]

24. You're kidding, right?

That sunscreen slows down the tanning process and Muffy is not going to put up with that, the 20 minutes a day in the tanning bed is enough time to take out of her busy little life. Muffy uses baby oil, if even that, and only because her skin tends to get a little dry after baking if she doesn't baste it.

It would be amazing if there was a precipitous drop in melanoma cases overall because Boomers and everyone who came along afterward can't afford to take vacations even with the time saved up because they're giving up too much overtime they need to live on. Besides, who can afford to go anywhere but the inlaws?

[aquart]

2. Tax the rich to save their lives!

It's a public health measure.

[tabatha]

4. really good twist lol

[gateley]

5. It's ironic that pale skin used to be a sign of wealth (hence the gloved hands,

parasols, hats) because a tan was what the laborers in the field had - ewwwww.

I think it was Coco Chanel who "made" tans become fashionable because after all, who else could afford to float around on their yachts on the Cote d'Azur?

Despite the knowledge of the damage that tanning can do, the media still portrays the healthy, wealthy jetsetters and trendsetters as tanned and beautiful. Kids and those who equate their worth with their wealth are influenced. IMO.

A tanned skin is a damaged skin as the doctor who performed my melanoma surgery told me -- just passing along a mantra for anyone who wants it.

[glinda]

6. Also would include "hair & skin" products with massive poisons in them.

[emilyg]

8. Yes.

[trotsky]

9. "Massive" poisons? Really?

Like what, exactly? And how would a company be able to get away with putting poisons in their product? Why doesn't every shampoo user drop dead from being poisoned?

[laconicsax]

11. It takes successive dilution for the poison to increase in strength to fatal levels.

Why do you think it says, "lather, rinse, repeat?"

Muahahahaha!

:evilgrin:

[glinda]

12. Just pick up a bottles of some of the popular pricey hair products then look up the ingredients.

The greatest risks of toxins going into the body is through everyday items such as shampoos, hair coloring, makeups, etc.... Showers with poor water quality, fluorides, combined with crap chemicals in a shower or bath are a lovely combination.

[trotsky]

14. I've looked at the ingredients.

Which ones are the "massive" poisons?

[glinda]

16. There is a lot of info out there but here are just a couple simple ones

http://www.natural-skincare-authority.com/hair-shampoo-toxins.html
http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/the-story-of-cosmetics?utm_source=jul10&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=titleCosmetics

[trotsky]

17. Lots of claims, not so much documentation.

Pointing me to a webpage that makes uncited, unsourced claims doesn't really help.

Especially one that labels sodium lauryl sulfate as being a "gastro-toxicant". :rofl:

[glinda]

20. Are you bored? Try looking up some information yourself. You use whatever you want. I insist.

[laconicsax]

21. +1

Burden of proof is such a quaint concept these days--it's probably best to just make someone else support your claims for you.

[trotsky]

22. Not quite familiar with how this works, are you?

You made the claim, you document it. So far you've failed - no wonder you want me to do the work for you.

[BuddhaGirl]

18. good links!

it's important that people become aware of all the harmful dyes and other garbage that goes into health and beauty products. Poison indeed!

[noneisthenumber]

13. PPD in permanent hair dyes

This chemical has been banned in many countries including France, Japan, Germany and Sweden. It is an aggressive allergen and multiple studies indicate its causal link to cancer.

[trotsky]

15. An allergen it is, just like peanuts or pollen can be...

but according to a meta study cited on Wikipedia although "at least one" study hinted at a cancer link concerning "hair dyes" (not necessarily PPD, as far as I can tell), even that one was inconclusive. A quote from the meta study: "Replication of these findings is needed to determine whether the reported associations are real or spurious." Perhaps you have some links or cites to support your claim that "multiple studies indicate its causal link to cancer"?

[noneisthenumber]

19. Big Industry Is Going To Make Sure It Counters Claims of Cancer Causality

Otherwise they would land themselves open to countless lawsuits, especially with something as prevalent as Hair Dye. They have undoubtedly sponsored favorable studies that contest this claim. Nevertheless, various studies continue to trace the connection between this aggressive chemical and cancer: "If you dye your hair more than nine times a year you could be 60 per cent more likely to develop a form of blood cancer called chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, a new study claims. And using dark hair dyes could increase your chances of developing follicular lymphoma, a form of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, by 50 per cent, according to the American Journal of Epidemiology. Another recent study found hairdressers and barbers have an increased risk of bladder cancer, which is thought to be caused by daily exposure to the chemicals in hair dye". Source: Daily Mirror UK (June 5 2008)

[trotsky]

23. Right.

Because if it's shown they were covering up cancer evidence, they'd be subject to FEWER lawsuits? :rofl:

Unless you have some hard factual data to support your claim rather than "oh, BIG INDUSTRY just paid for any study that disagrees with me," no one will take you seriously.

[K8-EEE]

10. I think the constant teeth whitening is in the same category

I really wonder if that has something to do with the oral cancers increasing.