Indoor sun tan could be dangerous

Press, 4 June 1982, Page 9

Indoor sun tan could be dangerous

By

DEBRA BULL,

in Sydney, NZPA-AAP

A leading dermatologist has warned that artificial suntanning, methods using UVA rays — thought to be harmless — could lead to skin cancer.

In an article in a recent edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, Dr " Alan Watson, visiting dermatologist at the Royal Newcastle Hospital, said that UVA could not be endorsed as "safe" or "without risk to skin and eyes” — claims which are being made for some UVA sun tanners.

Both UVA (longwave rays) and UVB (shortwave) have been used for artificial tanning, but UVA has increased in popularity because it is “gentler” and quite large doses can be delivered without discomfort.

The recommended time limit on UVB machines is only a few minutes, whereas the limit on UVA machines is closer to 45 or 60 minutes. Conversations with several tanning salon proprietors and a distributor in Sydney revealed a common acceptance of the dangers of UVB rays — and a belief that UVA rays were far safer.

Dr Watson said that UVB caused eye damage, and "a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence” showed it led to skin,cancers and kerotosis, or ho'rny skin growths. '

UVA. “initially thought to have been harmless," is at least "partly jesponsible” for long-term skin damage, such as wrinkling and elastotic degeneration. “Recent evidence also suggests that although UVA is not a good initiator or promoter of carcinogens alone, it markedly augments formation of skin cancers in ■animals when used in conjunction with UVB,” he said. This hazard may also be present when the UVA source emitted significant amounts of UVB, as was the case in all of the solarium units tested in a 1980 New South Wales Health Commission survey. : ' VTt may even work in a delayed fashion when UVA. is received after a day' of significant exposure to natural sunlight. ' " Dermatologists have been using regular doses of UVA, in conjunction with doses of oral photosensitiser (PUVA therapy), to treat psoriasis and other dermatoses. Dr Watson said patients had shown marked epidermal changes, including increased instance of skin cancer.

Margaret Jensen, 50,. proprietor of the Broadway Gym and Suntanning Clinic, says she used the UVA suntanning bed, and her extremely sensitive skin was better now than it had been when she was 20. “You’re much better off with UVA,”; she said, “You can burn yourself rapidly on UVB- so the limit 'on that machine is two minutes.” •

The only problem she had seen with the UVA bed in the past two years was the occasional heat, rash.

She gave clients a leaflet to read before they started treatments') and insisted that they wear protective goggles. • But she) added that she depended on the manufacturers for advice about safety precautions, and when customers j used the equipment she couldn’t "hold their hands." J, The manager of Electroat Parramatta. Mary Feros. 27, said she also preferred iflie UVA bed because it "feels much better on my skim-and in general.” Treatments were up, to 45 minutes long. “If people are careful with it, it can be safer than natural sunlight," she said.

The machine had a warning that excessive use — as with natural sunlight — could cause skin damage and cancer, she said, and patients were advised to wear eve goggles.-

Mr Gordon Wilson, a spokesman for Sul Products at Lakemba, the distributors of Sul-Tan equipment, said the West German manufacturers would sue if there was any more bad publicity about their solariums.

The equipment had the stamp of approval of the New South Wales Department of Occupational Health, and it emitted less than two per cent UVB — a standard set by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States. — he said. “It is safer than natural sunlight for the same period of exposure because it hasn't got the same percentage of UVB.” But Mr Wilson said he couldn’t give the percentage .oLUVA rays. •' "It is believed that the concentrated dose of UVA in a given period may be'higher than sunlight.” He stressed, however, that his conclusions were based on West German statistics. His machines had warning labels, and all came with protective goggles. The Medical Director, ol the New South Wales Cancer Council, Dr Gordon Sarsaty, supported Dr Watson’s suggestion that there was a need for adequate warnings and supervision — particularly when UVA machines were bought for private use. “They should be clearly labelled that they are potentially hazardous,” he .said.

"Some studies of experimental animals show effects of UVA on melanin in the skin:

“One would want to adopt an attitude of caution — we don't know yet whether it can cause the very dangerous skin cancer, melanoma — a potentially lethal cancer.

“The problem in this country is not how to get more sun, but how to get less of it,” (he said.