Abstract
Vogel et al. (1) provide another demonstration that the risk from sunbed use is not limited to skin-sensitive populations and shows increased risk even in those not having experienced sunburns in their lifetimes. It counters the argument frequently put forward by the indoor tanning industry that indoor tanning prevents sunburn and adds further evidence of the carcinogenicity of indoor tanning.
We are, however, concerned that those who consider vitamin D as a protective agent for cancer and thus defend sunbed use, might misinterpret the decline in odds ratio for increasing burns and consider that the increasing burns diminished the effect of sunbed use, hence providing “protection.”
We are, however, concerned that those who consider vitamin D as a protective agent for cancer and thus defend sunbed use, might misinterpret the decline in odds ratio for increasing burns and consider that the increasing burns diminished the effect of sunbed use, hence providing “protection.”
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | djv102 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | Journal of the National Cancer Institute |
| Volume | 107 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 13 Apr 2015 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 1 May 2015 |
Keywords
- Europe
- humans
- incidence
- melanoma
- risk assessment
- risk factors
- skin neoplasms
- sunburn
- ultraviolet rays
