Search

Background: In previous research, enhancing attractiveness is reported to be an important aspect of tanning motivation. Our aim was to analyze attractiveness as a reason for tanning in a large representative sample in relation to sociodemographic characteristics, perceived risks of ultraviolet radiation (UVR), and exposure to natural and artificial UVR. Methods: We analyzed data from 3000 participants (14‐45 years) in the German representative National Cancer Aid Monitoring (wave 3). Attractiveness was measured using the General Attractiveness Subscale of the Physical Appearance Reasons for Tanning Scale. Associations were analyzed using chi‐square tests and logistic regression analyses. Results: Attractiveness played a larger role for participants aged 18‐35, those with an immigrant background, medium educational level, and not in a relationship. Significant associations were also identified with a low risk perception of UVR. For sunbathing, the highest OR (9.96, P <.001) was found for high scores on General Attractiveness Subscale, whereas risk perception of UVR was not related to sunbathing in multivariate analyses. For sunbed use, risk perception also only played a minor role as a preventing factor, while higher associations could be identified for age (OR18‐25 years = 8.21, P <.001) and attractiveness (OR = 3.55, P <.001). Conclusion: Our study showed that people who tan to enhance their attractiveness are more likely to perceive fewer risks of UVR and to show higher UVR exposure behavior and are therefore at greater risk of developing skin cancer. Measures for prevention of UVR‐related skin damage should therefore focus more on reducing the positive perception of a tanned appearance instead of only emphasizing the risks of UVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perceived health risks from electromagnetic fields in mobile telecommunication and from UV radiation in tanning have become regulation issues in Germany during the last decade. Health risk messages from government expert bodies and the main stakeholders in these areas as well as subsequent consumer protection policy making are investigated. Publications and websites of government expert bodies and the main stakeholders as well as debates in Federal Parliament were analysed to compare argumentation patterns and parliamentary decision-making processes. In both areas, the public received competing health risk messages from the industries and their critics. As a government expert body, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) held the view that alleged health risks from electromagnetic telecommunication were not proven, and propagated the precautionary principle. This opinion did not endanger the agreement of 2001 between the government and mobile telecommunication operators. After the failure to obtain voluntary commitment from the tanning industry, by contrast, the BfS recommended stricter consumer protection legislation, which was subsequently implemented. The BfS was in a key position to demand the prerogative of interpretation concerning mutually excluding health risk messages and to provide the argumentation which led the way to non-ionic radiation health protection measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by shoes is common and new relevant allergens have been identified., Objectives: To investigate the pattern of type IV sensitization in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis of the feet related to shoes as a presumed culprit trigger., Methods: Retrospective analysis of data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2009-2018., Results: Six hundred twenty-five patients with presumed shoe dermatitis were identified in a cohort of 119 417 patients. Compared to patients with suspected contact sensitization from other allergen sources (n = 118 792), study group patients were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate (10.8% vs 3.5%), colophony (7.2% vs 3.7%), mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT; 4.0% vs 0.6%), mercapto mix (4.6% vs 0.6%), and p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin (1.6% vs 0.5%). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Moreover, reactions to compounds in the leather or textile dyes test series were scarce., Conclusion: A distinct sensitization pattern was observed in patients with suspected allergy to shoe materials. Although substances with low sensitization rates should be removed from the leather and shoe patch test series, novel potential allergens should be added., (© 2021 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)