Fashion & Skin Cancer. ..... the truth

Rates of melanoma have been increasing for at least the past 30 years. Now, a new study published in the American Journal of Public Healthclaims a number of cultural and historical factors over the past 100 years, such as changes in fashion trends and social perceptions, have contributed to this increase.

Researchers say changes in clothing over the past century have led us to show more skin, increasing UV exposure and the risk of melanoma.
Image credit: Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, NYU Langone Medical Center

Melanoma accounts for less than 2% of all skin cancercases but is the main cause of skin cancer deaths. This year, around 76,100 new cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the US, and around 9,710 people will die from the disease.

A major cause of melanoma is high exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun or tanning lamps and beds. Earlier this year, Medical News Today reported on a study revealing multiple sunburns as an adolescent can increase the risk of melanoma by 80%.

In this latest study, led by Dr. David Polsky of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York, NY, the researchers have identified a number of factors in the past century that have led to increased exposure to UV light, which may explain rising melanoma incidence rates.

To reach their findings, Dr. Polsky and his team analyzed a number of socioeconomic changes from the early 1900s until now - such as evolution of clothing styles, economic trends, perceptions of tanned skin, social norms and travel patterns - and looked at how these may translate into increased UV exposure.

They divided the 20th century into four periods - the turn of the century, early 20th century, mid-20th century and late 20th century - and estimated the how much of the body was likely to have been exposed to UV light in each period.

The 'era of porcelain beauty' diminishes

The researchers describe the turn of the century as the "era of porcelain beauty." Lower class individuals were more likely to be tanned, as the majority worked outdoors doing manual labor, while upper class people were more likely to stay indoors. Therefore, having a tan was associated with lower status.

This, and the general negative attitudes toward dark-skinned individuals in this period, increased desirability for fair skin, the researchers say. As a result, many people shaded themselves from the sun with parasols and thick clothing that covered most of the body.

This began to change, however, when evidence emerged that exposure to sunlight may be good for general health, as well as illnesses such as tuberculosisand rickets.

Exposure to sunlight started to be perceived as positive, and as a result, people began spending more leisure time in the sun and wore clothing that showed more skin.

A reversal in negative attitudes toward tanned skin

In the early 20th century, the first evidence that UV exposure may cause skin cancer emerged. But the researchers say such warnings were largely ignored.

"This may have occurred because the mechanism underlying UV-induced carcinogenesis was poorly understood," the researchers note. "It was also widely held that sunlight caused skin cancer only in susceptible individuals, such as patients with xeroderma pigmentosum, but not in the general population."

Such warnings continued to be ignored in mid-20th century, when negative attitudes toward tanned skin completely reversed, the authors say.

Tanned skin was perceived as "sexy" and "healthy," and was promoted as such by celebrities and fashion magazines. As a result, clothing became more revealing. The T-shirt - which led to arm exposure on a daily basis - grew popular in 1942, and the bikini became popular in the US in the 1960s, increasing women's skin exposure from 47% to 80%.

The team also notes that increases in travel and engagement in outside sports would have led to increased UV exposure.

Tanned skin maintains its 'allure,' despite skin cancer warnings

Figures show that between the 1930s and 1960s, melanoma incidence increased 300% in men and 400% in women. The researchers say that this increase correlated with changes in fashion, travel and leisure that led to an increase in skin exposure.

"The tanning trend that began in the 1920s sustained its allure and celebrity promotion into the late 20th century," the researchers say. "Despite mounting evidence that UV exposure was linked to the development of skin cancer, tanned skin remained highly desirable."

And it seems perceptions have not changed in the 21st century. Tanned skin is still seen as being attractive and healthy, and as a result, many of us tend to ignore the warnings of skin cancer.

This is supported in a feature by MNT earlier this year, looking at why we ignore the health risks of UV exposure.

"Despite elevated awareness of the dangers of UV radiation, people still choose to ignore the dangers in the pursuit of what they consider to be a 'healthy tan,'" Tim Turnham, executive director of the Melanoma Research Foundation, told us.

"This is particularly an issue among young people who tend to ignore health risks in favor of enhancing their social status and popularity," he added. "We know that tanning appeals to people who are interested in being included, and this is a primary driver for teens - being part of the 'in' crowd."

Rates of melanoma are still on the rise in the US. Incidence increased from 22.8 cases per 100,000 to 28.9 cases per 100,000 between 2000 and 2009.

The investigators of this latest study note that although their research is unable to make a causal link to melanoma, it effectively provides a "historical framework" of how changing socioeconomic factors have contributed to the disease. They add:

"Identifying the roles of cultural and historical forces (including gender and social class differences) that contribute to the growth and persistence of public health problems may help target interventions to affect disease epidemiology in a positive fashion."

MNT recently reported on a study suggesting that askin glow from fruits and vegetables is deemed more attractive than a tan.

US sends medical experts to study how Nigeria tamed Ebola

Stunned by the entrance of the Ebola Virus Disease, EVD, into America, the United States’ Center for Disease Control and Prevention has despatched its personnel to study how Nigeria contained the killer disease.

HEALTH PERSONNEL IN PROTECTIVE KITS AT THE NATIONAL HOSPITAL IN ABUJA ON TUESDAY

The US reported on Tuesday that it has discovered a case of EVD in Dallas, Texas, but its health officials said “the crisis is under control and the public has nothing to fear.”

A statement released by US CDC Director Tom Frieden said “it’s clear the nation needs a quick and thorough response to its first Ebola patient”

He said although Nigeria was not completely out of the woods, “their extensive response to a single case of Ebola shows that control is possible with rapid, focused interventions.” Apart from Nigeria, the US will also visit Senegal to study its model.

Frieden said “the best practices in Nigeria and Senegal suggest the U.S. should monitor all individuals who may have been exposed to Ebola and establish a dedicated management and response system.”

Senegal has had no new reported cases of Ebola since Sept. 18 while Nigeria has not reported new ones since August 31,

US health officials are expected in Nigeria which it claimed had the best practices in combating Ebola Virus disease which entered into Nigeria through Liberian born American citizen Mr. Patrick Sawyer whose index case was reported on July 20, 2014. Nigeria is expected to officially announce today that the remaining two potential Ebola patients will exit the 21-day observation period.

How Nigeria stopped the spread of Ebola

According to US CDC, “Nigeria’s first reported case of Ebola surfaced July 20, when Patrick Sawyer landed in Lagos from Liberia and exposed 72 other passengers to the virus. Nigeria’s Health officials quickly issued notifications and tracked everybody who may have been in contact with Sawyer.

“Nigeria also established an Ebola Incident Management Center to handle the potential outbreak and developed a staffing plan that executed a social mobilization strategy that reached more than 26,000 households of people living around the contacts of Ebola patients,”

The deadly virus has killed more than 3,000 people in Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia in the largest outbreak ever recorded.

How Senegal contained Ebola

Senegal confirmed its first Ebola case Aug. 29 after a man, travelling from Guinea on Aug. 14, took ill and showed symptoms of the disease. This prompted a quick response, including an experienced and trained staff that was prepared to contain the Ebola outbreak. The procedure led to the identification of 67 contacts who were placed under quarantine, monitored for 21 days and showed no symptoms of Ebola.

Panic in America

The man who imported Ebola into US was found to have travelled to Liberia without informing the authorities and did not disclose the nature of his ailment to the nurse that attended to him. Reports from Texas yesterday said that the Nurse who attended to the man has also taken ill for Ebola in Texas.

A spokesman for Texas Health Presbyterian said the patient had walked into a Dallas emergency room on September 26, without knowing that he contacted the deadly virus and left after he was treated. He then returned to the facility on September 28 where it was determined he likely had Ebola and was isolated. He tested positive Tuesday, health officials said.

Following the lapse on the part of the hospital officials, questions are being asked amid panic across the country. The CDC has thus advised that all medical facilities should ask for patients with symptoms consistent with Ebola for their travel history.

Hey guys your phone can expose you to cancer

Did you know that some items that you cherish the most could expose you to cancer and other illnesses when you do not use them properly?

Though they were invented to make life easier, their abuse or misuse could pose great danger to our health.

Scientists say that many technological appliances, such as mobile phones, televisions , microwaves, ovens and even refrigerators are powered by electromagnetic radiation which have been known to speed up the development of cancerous cells in the body, hence one should limit one’s exposure to them so they do not degrade vital body cells in the body.

The mobile telephone, according to Consultant Oncologist, (cancer specialist), Dr. Segun Kayode, is the device to watch out for. He says the advent of the mobile phone has been linked to the prevalence of breast, prostate and brain cancer.

Kayode explains that mobile telephones are not just powered by stored energy cells, but also they use electromagnetic radiation and ionising gamma rays, which can alter the genetic makeup of body cells when they are exposed to its rays for a long period.

“The technology of the mobile phone is such that it emits radiation. As the radiation penetrates the body tissue, it causes it to heat up. When the cells are at a temperature that is too high for them naturally, they get denatured and become useless. When there is altering in function, they begin to malfunction.

“Electromagnatic radiation also leads to DNA damage, which is the actual link to cancer. You hold the source of the emission, which is the phone, close to your brain that is why we have linked it with cancer of the brain too and there is evidence to back it up. There are claims that people who have had brain tumours had it in the exact size, shape and position as the shape where they placed their cell phone,” he states.

Doctors note that children and teenagers who use mobile phones are at greatest risk—both for parotid gland tumours and brain tumours—as their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation.

Scientists say the phone’s radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumours are more deadly. In addition, children’s cells reproduce more quickly, so they are more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Children also face a far greater lifetime exposure.

Studies by Swedish doctors shows that those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have four to five times higher risk of developing cancer of the brain when compared to adults.

Even the World Health Organisation places the cell phone radiation as class B-carcinogenic. Kayode defines a carcinogenic substance or radiation as anything that has the potential of fostering the production of cancerous cells in the body.

The global body in a report with the International Agency for Research states that cell phones may indeed cause cancer, and classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as carcinogenic and a possible danger to humans.

The classification came in part in response to research conducted by the WHO in collaboration with IAR, which shows that wireless telephones increase the risk of an individual developing cancer of the brain.

The number of cell phone users was estimated to be approximately five billion in 2011 and that number has continued to climb; it is safe to admit that we are already past the point of repairing any possible damage.

However, you need not fear, not everybody that has a mobile telephone will develop cancer. Scientists say that the way in which you use it and where you place it after using it, are the factors that would determine whether one is at risk for the side effects of this technology, which include paralysis.

Men in particular may want to reconsider carrying their cell phones on their belts or in their pocket, in close proximity of their reproductive organs.

In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder—all of which are susceptible to radiation, which causes cancer at the end of the day.

For example, research published in 2009 by two cancer specialists, Dr. Robert Nagourney and Dr. John West, showed evidence that wearing a cell phone on ones hip may weaken an area of your pelvis to cause osteoporosis and paralysis.

The physicians, after measuring the pelvic bone density of 150 men, who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts and those, who carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day, and had used cell phones for an average of six years, found that they had low mineral and bone density.

According to them, the electromagnetic field emission by their cell phones has reduced their pelvic and bone size, which could predispose them to paralysis.

West says, “It is important to realise that as long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. So, wearing a cell phone on your hip for 15 hours a day is giving that area of your body nearly continuous radiation exposure which is not good for the body.”

It is not just cancer, previous studies have a found that cell phone radiation can affect men’s sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm, and this may be a far greater issue than its effect on the bones around the male pelvic region.