Bottom line is, did any of 80,000 these people ever actually develop malignant skin cancer? The report would be much more helpful if they included that information in the study. As it is, why did they even bother to do the study? Did they have 80,000 people in control group of people who didn't use tanning beds, same age ranges, life style, family medical history, etc.?
Quote below article from USA (same link as you gave) from USA Today: "That suggests indoor tanning is responsible for about 5% of non-melanoma skin cancers, the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the USA, says Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science and trends at the American Cancer Society."
And they studied 80,000 cases back to 1977 - a period of 35 years. From that, they get that suntan beds cause 170,000 cases EACH YEAR? Geesh, I'd like to see the whole study. Then later they say "hundreds of thousands".
I think this is just another disinfo "scientific" research scare ploy to discourage people from getting Vitamin D, any way they can. But then, I don't believe much of any research headlines I see these days, especially from certain universities.
They identified nonmelanoma skin cancer in tanning bed users. Big deal. Thing is, that can come just as easily without sun exposure. Not to get too personal here, but all my moles are wherever clothing rubs...ALL along the bra line, waist, etc. Where the sun don't shine, and I don't use tanning beds. Some of them are pretty big, but the docs won't remove them (cheap HMO, wouldn't remove husband's on his back, either).
To put into a little more perspective, read what the various kinds of skin cancer, malignant and non-malignant, are. They should still be removed, but as we grow older, everyone gets them.
[link to www.caring4cancer.com (secure)
"Indoor tanning is associated with a significantly increased risk of both basal and squamous cell skin cancer," concluded the USCF study's authors." So, did they report the percent of people who thereafter did develop malignant
skin cancer during the 35 year period?
Sorry, but just not impressed with this "scientific" research.