Talk:Indoor tanning

Title

Does anyone mind if this is moved to Indoor tanning? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Makes more sense that "tanning bed." It's presumably only that because both "tanning bed" and "tanning booth" existed before. --tronvillain (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably go ahead and move it, in that case. If someone objects, we can move it back and open an RM. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Short on time: a few years ago, I might have argued, but the sources now seem to generalise it this way and even within the industry we now do. While it might seem a little odd at first (to me), it does make sense as the common name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest edits

Hi Michael, I'm going to revert your edits, because you're either adding material that's already there (e.g. physicians are in the lead paragraph to which you added them again, as is ultraviolet being in group 1), or you're moving the article in the direction of tanning beds not being a problem. And the external links you restored are in the article as sources.

Re: the vitamin D section, most researchers (not just "many") say that the health risks outweigh the benefits. Not all, but it's clear from the literature that most say people should take supplements instead. If you disagree with "most", please produce a few MEDRS-compliant sources here that say otherwise, so that we can judge how representative the opposite view is. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Understandable. Appreciate you taking the time to explain. Thanks - --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael, again, you're adding material that is already there, leading to repetition or contradiction. If you want to edit the medical aspects, please do two things. First, read the article through so that you know what is there already. Second, read the medical sources and make sure you check their sources. They are not straightforward on any of the points in the article. The issues are complex.

Also, don't use other people's summaries of sources. For example, the FDA did not estimate that 30 million people use beds every year in the US. That's probably a tanning industry figure that the FDA used casually. The article refers to this in a footnote. Finally, please no more sentences such as: "although A says X, Y is also true." SarahSV ^(talk) 01:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael, it's not clear what is meant by this, so I've moved it here (this article is about indoor tanning, so the material about sunscreen isn't relevant):

In a study funded by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Lin et al. reviewed nearly 200 studies and articles on the relationships of sun and UV exposure to basal and squamous cell carcinoma, melanoma, and other diseases and concluded that more studies were required. They cited the need for more detailed assessment of indoor tanning and sunscreen research in studies that consistently test for both environmental and host factors. They concluded that, although there were indications in many studies that sun and UV exposure had a potential to cause harm, changes in the technologies of both sunscreens and indoor tanning equipment had not been accounted for. It will take decades, they wrote, of studies to determine the actual protective nature of regular sunscreen use and the potential that current technology tanning beds may effect melanoma risk. These studies are necessary and should continue, according to the authors.

Can you summarize here the point about indoor tanning? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. "In a review of nearly 200 studies on the relationships of sun and UV exposure to several skin cancers, the authors concluded that, although there were indications in many studies that sun and UV exposure had a potential to cause harm, changes in the technologies of indoor tanning equipment had not been accounted for. It will take decades, they wrote, of studies to determine the potential that current technology tanning beds may effect melanoma risk. These studies are necessary and should continue, according to the authors." --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not what the paper says. The more accurate conclusion is this quote from the paper "On the basis of 5 fair- or good-quality cohort studies and 7 fair- or good-quality case–control studies, increasing intermittent sun exposure in childhood and during one's lifetime is associated with an increased risk for both squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma (range of ORs, 1.27 to 3.86) " Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

23:14, 10 January 2017‎ revision - Michael Powerhouse

What I've added:

• New section headers for the three different studies (by year)
• Descriptions of subsequent, updated studies after the 2007 IARC study

Why the text is needed:

• The new text adds more research-backed detail regarding the cancer risks of tanning beds. It also differentiates the risk from at-home tanning beds vs. tanning beds used in tanning salons.

Request:

• This page has been historically difficult to edit, with a handful of editors doing most of the editing (and deletions). Please engage in discussion here first if you do not like the revision, instead of merely deleting it.

Thank you, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael, you summarized the 2012 study as "there was an associated summary relative risk of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.08–1.34)". Can you say what that means so that it's more digestible for the readers? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the new text has been copied or very closely paraphrased from this letter to the editor, which is cited in the article but not after the words in question (not that that would make it okay). I don't want to spend a lot of time comparing the texts, but for example:

• Source: "For North America, the authors considered 8 studies to be credible and they calculated a meta analysis giving an overall odds ratio of melanoma of 1.23 (95% C.I. 1.03, 1.47) for ever having used indoor tanning; a statistically significant increase."

• Wikipedia: "For the North American region, the authors considered eight studies within the meta-analysis to be credible; they gave an overall odds ratio of melanoma of 1.23 (95% C.I. 1.03, 1.47) for ever having used indoor tanning."

• Source: "As indicated, these individual studies combined data from indoor tanning at home and indoor tanning at commercial tanning salons."

• Wikipedia: "These studies combined data from home based indoor tanning and indoor tanning done at commercial salons."

• Source: "Three of these eight acceptable North American studies also provided a separate analysis of home and commercial tanning salon use."

• Wikipedia: "Among these eight studies, three studies provided a separate analysis of home versus commercial based tanning salon use."

Michael, please summarize the sources in your own words and propose the edit here. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV. Thank you for your help with me on this. Here is my proposed new language, which will include the references:

Two newer studies from the 2007 analysis by IARC showed different results of the risk of melanoma from indoor tanning. In 2012, another report was published that included eight additional studies about indoor tanning. The study showed the odds of getting melanoma was 1.20 for people who ever used indoor tanning versus people who didn't. In 2014, a systematic review and meta-analysis showed the odds of getting melanoma was 1.23 for people who have ever used indoor tanning. When home based indoor tanning data was separated from salon-based tanning, the results were different. The odds of getting melanoma from home-based tanning was 1.53, while the odds from salon-based tanning was 1.05. Hoel 2016 summarized it as, "The three studies that considered both home and commercial indoor tanning show a considerable difference in melanoma risk between home indoor tanning and commercial tanning salon indoor tanning."

Thanks, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I can't see the 2014 study, but the abstract concludes: "Using tanning beds is associated with a subsequent melanoma diagnosis. Exposure from more than 10 tanning sessions is most strongly associated and there was no statistically significant difference in this association before and after 2000, suggesting that newer tanning technology is not safer than older models."

I wonder whether it's worth using, because it also says: "The quality of evidence contributing to review results ranges from poor to mediocre."

What conclusions do the authors reach that are not in the abstract? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This article already makes the melanoma association pretty clear. I'd be willing to compromise and add the language you suggested. My goal here was to clarify that the original 2007 IARC analysis used less studies than the subsequent studies, and that the later studies showed a slightly smaller risk of getting melanoma. Another main point I felt was germane to the article was the difference in melanoma risk in home-based beds vs. salon-based beds.

Regarding the full 2014 study, I didn't see it (I know we're supposed to go deeper than the abstract). I can contact the WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request desk to see if someone can locate the study for me.

In the meantime, would this text be acceptable to you? I think it's fair and balanced:

Two newer studies from the 2007 analysis by IARC showed different results of the risk of melanoma from indoor tanning. In 2012, another report was published that included eight additional studies about indoor tanning. The study showed the odds of getting melanoma was 1.20 for people who ever used indoor tanning versus people who didn't. In 2014, a systematic review and meta-analysis showed the odds of getting melanoma was 1.23 for people who have ever used indoor tanning. When home based indoor tanning data was separated from salon-based tanning, the results were different. The odds of getting melanoma from home-based tanning was 1.53, while the odds from salon-based tanning was 1.05. Hoel 2016 summarized it as, "The three studies that considered both home and commercial indoor tanning show a considerable difference in melanoma risk between home indoor tanning and commercial tanning salon indoor tanning." It should be noted that when a person does more than 10 tanning sessions, that volume is most strongly associated with a melanoma diagnosis later in life. Newer tanning beds (post-2000) are not necessarily safer than older technology. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Michael, thank you, that's helpful. You would need to read the whole paper before summarizing it, and there's no reason to use Hoel's summary. The Resource Exchange is a good place to ask; if someone does supply the paper, I'd appreciate seeing it too. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone got the paper for me on the Resource Exchange. As soon as he emails it to me, I'll send you an email - just reply and I'll send you the PDF. Thanks, Sarah. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Here is my new proposed text. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

Colantonio et al. 2014 conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at updated evidence of the association between melanoma and indoor tanning. The meta-analysis examined 37 studies with a total of 251,808 participants. The authors found that overall, people who use indoor tanning have a 16 percent increased risk in developing melanoma. For North Americans, this number was 23 percent. For people who started using indoor tanning services before age 25, their risk for melanoma further increased to 35% as compared to people who began after age 25. The authors recognize that the evidence that contributed to the results of the meta-analysis were of "low-medium quality" due to the study design (case-control), which is vulnerable to selection, recall and interview bias.

Thanks, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing no objection after two days, I'm going to post this text today. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of text in 6.1 Risks > Cancer risk

@SlimVirgin: Thank you for your help recently.

I have another proposal - I think the following text should be deleted because the content is too old. The study being cited is from 10 years ago. Because it is biomedical information, the WP:MEDRS criteria (WP:MEDDATE) of five years or earlier should be applied.

Section: 6.1 Risks > Cancer risk

"A 2007 analysis of epidemiological studies found a modest increase in the risk of melanoma (a relative risk of 1.15) among those who had ever used a tanning device compared to those who had not, but a 75 percent increase (a relative risk of 1.75) among those who had used one before age 30."

What do you think of this? I wanted to run the idea past you.

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It was because of the 2007 paper that the IARC raised the classification of tanning devices to group 1, so it needs to be included. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I understand the need to keep the information about IARC raising the classification of tanning devices to group 1. I propose we keep the citation for that, but we delete the old statistics because we I found and posted (with your help) more updated statistics, per WP:MEDDATE: "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We say "Following that study, the IARC placed UV-emitting tanning devices on its highest cancer-risk category, 'carcinogenic to humans'." Are you suggesting we say "following that study" without telling the reader what the study said? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE doesn't imply the wholesale deletions of anything older than five years. In this case expert opinion doesn't appear to have changed, and the older review isn't necessarily "superseded", especially when it's the current IARC review. --tronvillain (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait... it's not the most recent IARC review, this 2012 review is. And while it mentions the review that mentions the numbers already in this article, it also says The second meta-analysis(Hirst et al., 2009) included an additional nested case–control study of melanoma (Han et al., 2006), bringing the total number of melanoma cases to 7855, and the summary relative risk for melanoma in relation to ever versus never use of sunbeds was reported as 1.22 (95%CI: 1.07–1.39). Why not switch to this one? --tronvillain (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would leave it unless you have a more recent equivalent study to put in it's place. Just because the study is older, that doesn't mean we are forced to remove the citation. Policy favors newer references but doesn't force us to abandon older ones. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Image I'd like to add to the article

Caption of the photo from Palosirkka - I added this earlier but somebody removed it for whatever reason. I think it's a great historical picture.

I added this earlier but somebody removed it for whatever reason. I think it's a great historical picture.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs)

I believe user Palosirkka is asking to have the image added back to the page although formatted kind of strange so forgive me for moving some of their talk page comment without permission. I removed the picture a while ago as I don't see the "great historical" benefit of having it in the article. When removed, I asked what it had to do with indoor tanning and never received a response. I still don't see how it serves the reader of the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. BD2412 T 18:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be sensational to have a picture of indoor tanning in an article about indoor tanning. I don't understand why you object it. --Palosirkka (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say, "sensational"? BD2412 T 16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)