The statistics say: enjoy your sun tan

A woman sunbathes in Greenwich Park, London

The media are as irresponsible in their use of skin cancer statistics as people who don’t use sun lotion when they sunbathe

FIRST POSTED MAY 26, 2009

There are lies, damned lies and statistics, says an old cliché - although it isn't true. There are lies, damned lies and careless analysis of statistics, followed by misinterpretation of them by scaremongering media

It's been virtually impossible to open any newspaper or click onto a news website recently without reading headlines about the dangers of wanting a tan. 'Binge tanning responsible for surge in skin cancer,' suggested the Times online yesterday.

To confuse the issue further, a YouGov poll of 4,485 people conducted in late April showed that this year fewer people are going abroad for a tan, and that 18 per cent of sunbed fans 'thus' plan to use them more often. As a result, Scotland's The Herald went with 'Recession linked to skin cancer'.

On closer examination, however, the level of danger is more imagined than real.

There is little or no danger of developing melanoma from getting a natural tan

One starting point is to ask 'Is this important?' It may seem a heartless question, but I should point out that there is a slightly less than evens chance that not a single one of the 4,485 interviewed by YouGov will die of melanoma. This is because it kills 1 person in 7,000 in the UK.

The second question is equally simple: is there a link between sunbathing and the growth in UK skin melanoma rates? Health News notes, "In the last 30 years, rates of the cancer have more than quadrupled, from 3.4 cases per 100,000 people in 1977 to 14.7 per 100,000 in 2006".

But among those under 40, the rate is seven per 100,000 - or roughly one in 14,000. Fully 50 per cent of all UK melanoma deaths occur in people aged over 70. The highest rate by far - 23 per 100,000 - is among women aged over 85. The most obvious (and almost certainly correct) conclusion from this is that rates of melanoma are growing because we're all living longer. As the Cancer Research UK website records:

"At younger ages, there is some indication that female (skin-cancer death) rates are levelling off."

The NHS says most skin melanoma (pictured right) cases could be prevented if people took care not to redden or burn

Or put another way: if you go out in the sunlight fairly regularly with a reasonable degree of protection, you have a 1 in 4,000 chance of dying from melanoma by the age of 85. Given the benefits most people feel from a tan, I'd imagine 99 per cent would say it was a risk worth taking.

That may sound irresponsible, but it's not nearly as irresponsible as releasing a whole swathe of figures to the media who then make hay while the sun shines. For example, sunbed users are - according to the BMJ - 13 per cent of all UK citizens. The majority use them irregularly, and only 18 per cent of these expressed a desire to increase usage in the YouGov study.

When it comes to normal holiday tanning, the NHS advises: "most (skin melanoma) cases could be prevented if people took care not to redden or burn".

Not just deaths mark you - cases. In 2009, only idiots walk around in Mediterranean sun all day with no protective cream. For the rest of us, there is little or no danger of developing melanoma from getting a natural tan. And there are clearly health benefits from so doing: if 46 per cent feel healthier, and a fifth say they feel more attractive when tanned (YouGov again) then self-esteem rises, and thus antidepressant prescriptions fall.

Superficially examined research produces shibboleths, while these in turn cause needless anxieties and yet more over-protective attitudes. Medical authorities and charities would do better to warn about skin-type risk - the biggest link to melanoma - and spend less time briefing a voracious media with dodgy analysis.

FIRST POSTED MAY 26, 2009

Add to:

Comments

Hide comments

this is a very dangerous article. All sunlight and UV radiation, in whatever quantity, causes some damage to the skin (at least, for Caucasians). In a sunny country, I have seen the terrible skins effects on elderly farmers who have never bothered with skin protection.

Posted by bill@iway.na at 10:25am on May 27, 2009

35 years in advertising obviously addled this writer's brain, or does he have a chain of sunbed emporia to defend? A dangerously ignorant article which fails to address the issue properly but relies on tabloid style 'reasoning' to make some spurious points. Skin cancer rates have grown in direct proportion to sunbed use, and foreign holidays. Malignant melanoma incidence rates in Britain have more than quadrupled since the 1970s when sunbeds first appeared. Malignant melanoma is disproportionately higher in younger people, and almost one third of all cases of malignant melanoma occur in people under 50. Malignant melanoma is the second most common cancer in young adults (aged 15-34) in the UK. In Australia it is against the law to go on the beach unless covered up, this is due to the fact that skin cancer rates were exploding there. More than 2,600 people die from skin cancer each year in the UK, and more than half of all people that die from malignant melanoma are younger than 70. You have to also bear in mind that with the ozone depletion that has happened over the last few decades, more UV is getting through now, so the radiation is more harmful than it once was [the sun in the middle of winter can be very hot indeed. The ozone hole hasn't gone away. So yes, I agree with Bill Torbitt, a very dangerous and irresponsible article. That some, intellectually challenged, people think a tan makes them healthier and more attractive just shows how little they have taken in about the harmful effects, they are ignorant just like the author of this silly piece.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 11:38am on May 27, 2009

Well said Mr. Ward. Human beings cannot survive without exposure to sunlight and a tan is a natural response to UV exposure (the stimulation of melanocytes increases the quantity of melanin in the skin). Outdated advice by government and supposed health professionals is actually putting the nation's health at risk. Because we have spent so much time listening to unfounded scare mongering and covering up from the sun/avoiding sunbeds we are now seriously Vitamin D deficient! Moderation and taking care to avoid sunburn is the key to any UV expossure.

Posted by Lene Priess at 11:46am on May 27, 2009

@Bill Torbitt. Your response is a good example of the false reasoning raised in the article. Another example would be all breathing means absorbing nasty particles from the air so stop breathing*. The point to remember is we all will die one day. We should, if we are rational thinking people (and if we are at least moderately intelligent we will be) balance costs (e.g. risk of skin cancer) against benefits (many people feel better after a bit of sunbathing. It may be vanity, but who cares? Reality rules!). The anti-sun brigade are not unique. The world is full of one trick ponies who are blinded by their enthusiasm for their own unbalanced positions; that way they justify their existence........ *Yes, that is a little more obvious. But it follows the same silly "logic"

Posted by TomNightingale at 11:51am on May 27, 2009

Melanoma is as likely (as a %age of surface area) to occur on non-sun exposed parts of the body such as soles of the feet. Far more common sun-related cancer is 'rodent ulcer' which seldom kills, as it doesn't spread to other parts of the body. Sunshine exposure may reduce other kinds of cancer such as bowel and prostate due to increased vitamin D. As to the previous post, I would not rate increased wrinkles as 'very dangerous.' Moderate exposure and some sun block when it's very hot will have you living a longer and healthier life than obsessively avoiding sunshine. I can't imagine where all the hysteria has come from!

Posted by davidf1412 at 12:36pm on May 27, 2009

The article clearly states that you would be an idiot to walk around in a hot country without sun screen so I don't see how it can be interpreted as dangerous or promoting irresponsibility.

Posted by Simon O'Neill at 1:03pm on May 27, 2009

It really is about time this topic was examined by an unbiased science lab. Toothpaste has an ingredient to make the breath smell when it wares off. so does mouthwash, and cheap dehodrent gives one B.O. In fact almost everything sold at the pharmacy does'nt do any good at all. It just makes money for the drug companies, kidding to the people. Sun lotion was the master of all the kid jobs. The only good it does is for the pocket of some of the richest companies on earth.

Posted by Robert Latimer at 2:05am on May 30, 2009

And here we have the idiot, R Latimer seems to have information denied the rest of us and the media. He also thinks most science labs are biased, and can't sell wears [off], so he clearly barely educated, or American perhaps. Still, if all the idiots in the world die of skin cancer because they don't believe in it, the world will be a much better place, so bring it on!

Posted by Peter Simmons at 4:05pm on June 1, 2009

@Robert Latimer. Here at Which? we test SPF15 sunscreens annually. We have discovered that inconsistent industry testing guidelines mean it's possible that sunscreens carrying the same SPF label could give significantly different levels of protection. We're talking to manufacturers and the industry body to try to get consistent testing (http://tinyurl.com/owgx6u). Re. the comment in the article "only idiots walk around in Mediterranean sun all day with no protective cream", to get the SPF on the bottle you need about 35ml per application, or one sixth of a 200ml bottle. When we've quizzed people, they typically use a quarter to half that amount.

Posted by Nicola Frame at 10:44am on June 3, 2009

Is this another example of advertising/media hype. Some 55 years ago my National Service comrades and I were running about in Malaya, Cyprus, Egypt, Libya and various other tropical paradises wearing only sometimes even when on duty Shorts only. I keep in touch with many old pals and have yet to hear of sun damage. Our elder brothers did the same 10 or so years earlier. When will the Ad men stop turning every occasion into a source of fear and to them income?

Posted by John Stanton at 4:46pm on June 3, 2009

You say the odds of dying from melanoma by the time you're 85 are 1 in 4,000? Let's say that the odds of being dying by being struck by lightning by the time you're 85 are 1 in 1,000,000. This gratifyingly low probability still doesn't mean that when the storm breaks you'd be wise to don a suit of armour and stand under the open skies to do an impromptu performance of "Dancing in the Rain".

Posted by Daen de Leon at 5:57pm on July 1, 2009