Not Guilty By Reason of Sanity ? UVA1 Skin Cancer Trial Verdict In ...

?

Turns out, what had been missing from the first press reports yesterday, was accuracy. Initial reports were an over simplification of the science and the truth suffered:

?

Study Suggests Ultraviolet A Rays, Once Thought to Be Less Risky Than UVB, May Also Lead to Cancer

The new study shows that "with the UVA1 they were able to produce the same types of DNA damage that you see in early skin cancer, and that's actually interesting because that hasn't really been shown before," says Rigel, who was not involved in the research. WebMd

?

Scientists Warn of Danger of Filtered Sunlight

UVA1, which makes up 75 per cent of sunlight, was found to damage a deeper layer of the skin. UVA1 radiation can pass through windows and glass, but are less dangerous compared to UVB which act mainly on the outermost skin layers where cancers frequently occur.

The UVA2 radiation is the type used in tanning beds. Darrel Rigel, clinical professor of dermatology at New York University Medical Center, pointed out that people generally were more concerned with UVA 2, which is closer to UVB, than to UVA1.

However, the new study by London researchers showed that UVA1 could produce the same types of DNA damage similar to early skin cancer. International Business Times

?

UVA as much a "Bad Boy" as UVB in Skin Cancer

UVA1 may be more carcinogenic than previously thought, with researchers finding it induces molecular lesions, particular at increased skin depths. Oncology Update/Reed Business

?

A less editorially presumptive, and updated report, also from yesterday:

Ultraviolet A1 rays induce thymine dimers but not pyrimidine (6-4) pyrimidone photoproducts in the DNA of human epidermis in vivo, and the level of induced thymine dimers increases with the epidermal depth, according to a study published online Oct. 6 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology ?

?

The investigators found that UVB induced both TTs and 6-4PPs, while UVA1 induced TTs, but not 6-4PPs in the epidermis of healthy volunteers in vivo. For the same level of erythema, UVB induced more TTs than UVA1. With increasing epidermal depth, there was an increase in the level of UVA1-induced TTs, in contrast to a decrease in UVB-induced TTs. The rate of repair of UVA1-induced and UVB-induced TTs in epidermal cells was similar.

"We have demonstrated that erythemally equivalent doses of UVA1 and UVB induce TTs in human buttock skin in vivo, but that 6-4PPs are induced by UVB only," the authors write.

?

Read of the roles played by both 6-4PPs and CPDs (cyclobutane-pyrimidine dimers), which together make up the TTs, and the truth benefits ? except for the undisputed anti-neanimorphic skin effects, one might argue UVA has been a "Good Boy" all along.

For the complicated truth, Mariliis Tark?s literature review for his 2009 PhD dissertation?(PDF) ??Mutagenic potential of DNA damage repair and tolerance mechanisms under starvation stress ? Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu, Estonia ? serves nicely.

CPDs and 6-4PPs create distortions in DNA, bending it by 7-9? and 44?, respectively. Due to this bending and the loss of normal base-pairing these lesions are obstacles to cellular processes such as DNA replication and transcription (Kim et al, 1995). It is no surprise that due to the major distortion induced in DNA, 6-4PPs have more serious, potentially lethal and mutagenic effects, while the toxicity of CPDs is limited and mostly due to the abundance of this type of the damage (Sinha & H?der, 2002).

As first suggested in 2004 on the back cover of?Lupus Underground,???if research concerning both benefits and risks were accurately presented, if critics were fair,?? this would not have needed to be written.

?

?

Quote of the Weekend: Creative minds have always been known to survive any kind of bad training ~Anna Freud

?

Source: http://lupusuva1phototherapy.com/?p=8203

james carville andy cohen andy cohen rimm bill of rights constitution day constitution day