{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01597444089456869, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0012779552715654952, 'mean_word_length': 5.069767441860465, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Tanning, p53 and PCMR

Constitutive pigmentation protects against melanoma; dark-skinned individuals are at much less risk of developing melanoma than those with fair skin and consequently a propensity to sunburn. For those with fair skin, nature has provided tanning as a mechanism that increases protection against ultraviolet (UV)-induced DNA damage. One could therefore argue that having a suntan is a good thing, but acquiring one can be dangerous, given that UV irradiation generates DNA damage that may lead to melanoma or other skin cancers. Despite increasing public awareness of the dangers of excessive sun exposure and its association with melanoma, fashion has driven a substantial increase in the numbers of tanning salons that, in return for payment, will provide a generous dose of UV irradiation for individuals not content with their constitutive level of pigmentation. Bodies representing the tanning industry argue that a tan is a good thing, and that exposure to the sun is healthy and required for the synthesis of vitamin D. But within the scientific and medical community, there is increasing unease the way in which tanning is marketed as being solely beneficial and the dangers of UV exposure are downplayed. In this issue, three Perspectives from David Fisher, Marianne Berwick and Dorothy Bennett redress the balance and examine the science behind tanning. It is hoped that by placing the benefits and dangers of UV irradiation in the scientific spotlight, the validity of the claims for and against the tanning industry may be revealed.