Indoor Tanning, Science & The Responsibility Of Thinking - by Richard Gozinya

Masturbation causes blindness, aspartame causes brain cancer, and yes (if you believe everything you read) indoor tanning increases the likelihood that you'll become a substance abuser.

Medical researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center say beware. In a study of 421 college students at the University of Albany, researchers concluded that 1 out of 5 indoor tanners showed classic signs of addiction. The study concludes that they were hooked on tanning sessions the same way others become addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Wait, it gets better. Tanning "addicts" are four times more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression, six times more likely to drink alcohol and equally as likely to smoke marijuana.

The study, published in the Archives of Dermatology, was conducted by Catherine Mosher and her colleague, both behavioral scientists at Memorial Sloan-Kettering.

This is the good part: the hard scientific "facts" purportedly derived from this research were based on surveys in which 421 students were asked to rate their indoor-tanning habits as well as their attitudes toward tanning. No lab rats, no test tubes, no microscopes or high tech equipment, the so called "science" in this research looks pretty thin.

Study participants were also asked to rate themselves as non-drinkers, social drinkers, or heavy drinkers, whether they smoked pot (and if so how often), and to rank their feelings of anxiety and depression on a scale of 1 to 10.

What's wrong with this picture? And, why should the researchers who did the study, the media who reported it as "science," and the dumb asses who were gullible enough believed it be ashamed of themselves?

First we need to look at the obvious ridiculousness of the conclusions published by the researchers. Why would indoor tanning cause people to become drug and alcohol addicts and outdoor tanning not? Farmers, fisherman, construction workers and landscapers would all be in a high risk category if this ridiculous notion was true.

Next let's examine the reliability of the data. How many college students who smoke marijuana would admit to it on a written survey? The answer in this case (according to the study) is 1 out of 6, but anyone who went to college knows that the actual number is much higher (no pun intended) than that.

How about the fragility of the ego for the average 18 to 20 year old? Any parent who has raised kids through this age bracket can tell you how important physical appearance and being accepted by their peers is to them.

Addiction? Not quite, but this would explain why the golden glow of a healthy tan ranks among the higher priorities for many young adults.

The larger issue here is how the notions of "correlation" and "causality" are confused or used intentionally to confuse people by unscrupulous academics.

In common terms, it's called "jumping to conclusions," and it's a natural tendency of the mind. For the average person it's understandable, but for scientists it should be criminal because they're trained to know the difference.

The word "correlation" means that certain things occur together - whether they have anything to do with one another is a separate matter. "Causality" describes a cause and effect relationship between things, meaning that when one thing happens it causes a predictable effect to occur.

Let's consider an example: Suppose I surveyed a thousand pregnant women and asked whether they drank a diet soda within 24 hours of becoming pregnant. I might discover that 8 out of 10 had, but does this mean that diet soda causes pregnancy or for that matter even has anything to do with it? Not hardly, the only thing I could conclude from this survey is the correlation that a lot of young women drink diet soda.

Finally, let's recap the situation. A couple of pencil necks from a small college in upstate New York hand out questionnaires to 421 students. They look at the results and submit their findings concluding that indoor tanning causes drug and alcohol addiction. And, the "piece de resistance," the media reports the study as scientific fact without the least bit of scrutiny.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for people who use propaganda disguised as science to advance their own political and social agendas, and a close second is for "lap-dog" journalists who don't have the guts or grey matter to question the sources or material that they cover.