{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03396603396603397, 'fraction_numerical': 0.000999000999000999, 'mean_word_length': 5.147239263803681, '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}}
[Is UV-A a cause of malignant melanoma?].

The first action spectrum for cutaneous malignant melanoma was published recently (2). This spectrum was obtained using the fish Xiphophorus. If the same action spectrum applies to humans, the following statements are true: Sunbathing products (agents to protect against the sun) that absorb UV-B radiation provide almost no protection against cutaneous malignant melanoma. UV-A-solaria are more dangerous than expected so far. If people are determined to use artificial sources of radiation for tanning, they should choose UV-B-solaria rather than UV-A-solaria. Fluorescent tubes and halogen lamps may have weak melanomagnetic effects. Ozone depletion has almost no effect on the incidence rates of CMM, since ozone absorbs very little UV-A radiation. Sunbathing products which contain UV-A-absorbing compounds or neutral filters (like titanium oxide) provide real protection against cutaneous malignant melanoma, at least if they are photochemically inert.