+
sports
KANSAN.COM/SPORTS | MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2017
Josh Jackson selected No.4 overall by Phoenix Suns
BEAK THE HEAT
Health risks not deterring people from tanning
> CHANDLER BOESE
@Chandler_Boese
Photo illustration by Missy Minear
For many people, one of the best parts about the summer heat is getting some color on one's skin. But the health costs to tanning can sometimes outweigh the benefits.
For decades, multiple campaigns have been successful in increasing awareness of the correlation between tanning and skin cancer, but individuals are still intentionally tanning regularly. Dr. Pavika Saripalli, a physician specializing in internal medicine and pediatrics at Watkins Health Center, says she still frequently sees students come in for skin abnormalities related to sun exposure.
"We do see a lot of people who are starting to get the weird moles and freckles and don't know if they should have them removed or not," she said. "So being in your 20s is not too soon to start getting your skin checked and getting stuff removed."
Skin cancer affects one out of every five people in the U.S., according to statistics from the Skin Cancer Foundation, and 90 percent of those cases are due to exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light. In fact, a 2014 study found that it's more likely for tanning to cause skin cancer than it is for cigarettes to cause lung cancer.
Despite the risks, though, tanning is still exceedingly common. Ninety percent of women in the U.S. see tanned skin as desirable
and 10 percent of the overall population tans indoors, which is typically seen as a more dangerous form of tanning.
For strategic communication professor Yvonne Chen, who has done research into anti-tanning and anti-tobacco marketing strategies, there's a large gap between knowing something's dangerous and actually stopping use of it. Bridging that gap with tanning won't be an easy or simple task.
"The key to understand the barriers when it comes to: why do they still think they want to tan, what are the benefits that they perceive, what are the barriers that keep them from putting on sunscreen...," she said. "Having that knowledge can sometimes be helpful, but sometimes it's not guaranteed that it will affect perception or prevent behavior."
The drawback to tanning goes beyond just the risk of skin cancer, though.
Nationally, treating skin cancer costs $8.1 billion yearly, according to the Skin Cancer Foundation, and tanning can lead to early wrinkles.
For those who do choose
"The people who have the worst skin as they get older, not just health-wise, but cosmetically, are generally the people who tanned the most when they were young," Saripalli said. "So you're trading short-term attractiveness for looking old faster."
to tan, getting moles and other skin irregularities checked out by a medical professional is extremely important, as it's hard to tell the severity of a mole simply by looking at one. This is the method taken by many University students, Saripalli said.
"What I see is that, when people are young, they are more thinking about tanning, and then when they get their first mole or freckle or something, they kind of begin to realize, OK,
now I'm having the negative effect of sun," Saripalli said. "I'm not sure changes their behavior with sun exposure, I think they're just coming in to see us more and have us look at all their moles and want them removed."
To prevent sun damage, regularly reapply sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or above, Saripalli said. Additionally, avoiding the sun, wearing clothes with more coverage and staying inside in the middle of the day will help greatly.
termoons have been spent cheering for the Jayhawks through thick and, unfortunately, a lot of thin moments. But, it's impossible to argue that the stadium doesn't need improvements.
It's the seventh-oldest stadium still used by an FBS team. It shows signs of wear across its exterior. It's severely outdated by contemporary standards.
Kansas Athletics announced that a $300 million renovation will be coming to Memorial Stadium, which will include an indoor practice facility and infrastructure upgrades.
amiranda Anaya/KANSAN or proactice facility and
thing else at the University.
This is a great move for all interested parties. For the fans, it's going to enhance the game-day experience for the die hards who trek down the hill to see the Jayhawks play. For the players, specifically future recruits, it becomes a more inviting and
It's undoubtedly time for an upgrade.
Discussing college athletics finances is a great way to find out that someone has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Kansas football isn't going to use $300 million that otherwise would have gone to improving the School of Education or updating equipment in the School of Journalism or whichever department you feel is underfunded.
Things like the Williams Fund and private donors are main sources of income for supporting Kansas Athletics projects. It's understandable that seeing a huge sum of money being spent on football facilities could cause a stir, considering the financial straits the University might be facing in some areas. The reality, though, is that this money will be completely disconnected from the rest of the University.
Football is a massive tool for recruiting (both athletically and for general students), alumni relations and income, and if you don't see that then you simply aren't paying attention.
Alabama is a perfect case study for this. A gold standard for college football, the Crimson Tide's on-field success has generated an unconscionable amount of money
and publicity for that school. It's unrealistic for Kansas, or really any program, to think it can reach Alabama's level of success, but it's clear that improving football will improve the University in other areas.
Again, you need to spend money in order to make it. Putting money into the program now, or at least in the near future, will show dedication to the program and is going to help bring in more high-level recruits over time. The football team needs to get better, and this move will
help in that pursuit.
Most of the arguments against the spending come up baseless and sound unintelligent. The money isn't being stolen from other University programs. Memorial Stadium is nearly 100 years old — it needs to be repaired and updated.
And if your argument is based around asking why you would spend $300 million to help a football team that won two games in the last two seasons combined, take a moment and think critically.
Why wouldn't you spend money to try to improve the program? What else would you do, just ignore the disaster and let the team fall into irreparable ruin? That notion is ridiculous and poorly thought out at best.
The cost of this project is a small price to pay for improving the team, and subsequently the University, over time. Don't get caught up in the price tag or the view from your ivory tower. Trying to better the football team is better for all of us who support the University.
.
4
+