Study: Tanning beds can be as deadly as arsenic

[Superboy]

It's not always just a matter of stupidity. I used to tan when I was a young teenager because I had fairly bad acne and found that it all but dissapeared when I had a tan. I was well aware of the risk of skin cancer, but I also knew that the risk was minimal and considered the benefits well worth it.

Vanity might not be a better reason than stupidity, but I'm more than willing to take such a slight risk if it helps me get laid.

[Darth Yoshi]

Tanning beds being bad is, frankly, blindingly obvious. Tans happen because your skin is being cooked by UV radiation, and it produces melanin to protect your innards. No cooking, no tan. Duh.

[ArmorPierce]

Absolutely. At least when you go to the beach, you get to enjoy the breeze, the golden sand, the waves lapping up against the shore, wading, sand-castle building, maybe some beach volleyball, and the attractive women in low bikinis. A tanning bed? What do you get then? You go inside to a little room and lie yourself down in a half-open coffin for an hour. Not only does it give you skin cancer in return for shoring up your low self-esteem, it's got to be more boring than an MRI, because in an MRI at least you don't have the high-energy blue glare.

You're exaggerating. Most people don't lay down for more than 10 minutes a session, more likely less.

[Superboy]

Actually most people go in tanning beds for closer to 30 minutes. 10 minutes at a time will barely get you a tan at all. It's also pretty common for people to go more than once a week. The workers at the place I used to go to would recommend going every second day, and I know a lot of the people there did just that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, it seems this is full justification for banning tanning, which would really be quite nice, seeing as pale skin is far more attractive anyway. There's nothing quite so repulsive as skin which looks like a roast hock of ham, which most women who buy into the tanning formula do. It's just a broadcast of "I'm going to die of skin cancer in a decade or two" and can't be seen as much better than the female equivalent of a red neck. It also horrendously ages you. I cover my body from the neck down in extremely sunny weather and just drink lots and lots of fluids (like I did today in our 100+ F heatwave while driving) and lather my exposed skin in sunscreen and of course my skin is damned near perfect and other women endlessly ask me how I do it, the answer always being "cover up from the sun and rub a lot of curel lotion into your face especially on a daily basis". I can't believe that people still tan in light of the fact that it turns you into an ugly old prune by the time you're in your mid-30's, when skin carefully preserved from the sun and tenderly cared for can maintain a pale and exquisite fineness well into your 50's.... If these women want to be pretty, why are they destroying their skin, the principle metric by which their attractiveness can be determined? To me it's a form of madness driving by marketing, a social compulsion sort of like the coolness of smoking, which should be banned for the health of the general population, in the exact same way that smoking has been systematically restricted.

[ArmorPierce]

Actually most people go in tanning beds for closer to 30 minutes. 10 minutes at a time will barely get you a tan at all. It's also pretty common for people to go more than once a week. The workers at the place I used to go to would recommend going every second day, and I know a lot of the people there did just that.

I have read even tanning salon sources statingthat you shouldn't use it more than 20 minutes at a time at all.A lot tanning salons will not allow you to go over 25-30 minutes so I'm doubting that the average person gets it that long. A new untanned person is not recommended to tan any more than a few minutes.

[Broomstick]

There's never been anything healthy about a tan, and thankfully the Australian government has come out putting health ads that say exactly that.

A tan is "healthy" in the same way a scar is "healthy": A scar is better than having an open wound, though not as good as skin that has never been damaged. A tan is better than sunburn, peeling skin, and cell damage, but not as good as skin that has never been damaged. Clearly, it's better to avoid cuts and burns in the first place. If people looked at a tan as a form of scarring that might alter their perceptions.

Of course, we also have the other extreme - OMG! You're looking out a window put on some sunscreen!

I get kidded sometimes because I use sunscreen when I'm out all day painting or mowing lawns. Despite that, my hands and arms have acquired more color than they usually do, simply because my skin is that pale that even with SPF 45 a full day of sun is going to either leave me pink or slightly browner. No big deal - I've avoided blistering burns, and a slight tan isn't going to kill me. I do not, however, make any effort whatsoever to deliberately tan anywhere else. As my hands and arms are out in the sun the tan arguably does some good, that doesn't mean baking my whole body is the smart thing to do.

When did tanning become glamorous, anyway? A while ago being tanned meant you were low class, because you spent all day outside doing physical labour. Funny how attitudes change.

It changed when most low class jobs became indoor jobs - having the free time to bake yourself then became a status symbol.

Unfortunately, the tan will always carry a certain appeal, for various reasons. A tan conceals certain imperfections and irregularities in the skin, just as it is easier to spot dirt on a white car than a brown one.

Um... yes and no. Tanning on very pale skin leads to freckling and, over time, liver spots and various irregularities. It also makes scars more visible (I currently have vivid reminders of a 35 year old case of road rash on both forearms). A slight tan will even out the skin tone in most people, but for frecklers it won't, and extreme tanning will only result in shitty looking skin.

[Broomstick]

It's not always just a matter of stupidity. I used to tan when I was a young teenager because I had fairly bad acne and found that it all but dissapeared when I had a tan.

That's because UV is a disinfectant, as it destroys bacterial cells as a well as human skin cells.

Of course, too much UV also tends to suppress your immune system, which can make you more vulnerable to bacteria and lead to "rebound" acne.

[NoXion]

Is there any way of getting the skin to produce (extra) melanin that does not involve exposure to UV radiation?

[Broomstick]

Methoxsalen will darken the skin - it is used to treat various skin disorders including vitiligo. That was the drug used by the author of Black Like Me to darken his skin, although he also used a UV lamp as well. Bergamot oil naturally contains this chemical, although a lot of commercially used bergamot oil has the methoxsalen removed.

There are probably a few others. Methoxsalen does have side effects, and for some people they can be quite hazardous.

Skin dye is probably your safest option for a tan, though of course it doesn't protect you from UV.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Well, it seems this is full justification for banning tanning, which would really be quite nice, seeing as pale skin is far more attractive anyway. There's nothing quite so repulsive as skin which looks like a roast hock of ham, which most women who buy into the tanning formula do. It's just a broadcast of "I'm going to die of skin cancer in a decade or two" and can't be seen as much better than the female equivalent of a red neck.

Don't be fucking retarded Zeon; I hear its a matter of personal taste what one finds attractive instead of RARAR DARKIES ARE UGLY SKIN

[Broomstick]

I read that as "skin that has been radiation burned into the appearance of a different ethnic group is ugly" as opposed to "skin that is naturally dark is ugly". It's a fine distinction, but I think it's there. Those who naturally have highly productive melanocytes can have beautiful, dark skin. Those who are as pale by birth as the Duchess, however, look like shit when they insist on tanning heavily for years.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Definitely sounds like she was referring to those who tan to the point that by the time their in their 30's and 40's their skin looks like shoe leather. The whole ham hock is the biggest give away, as they are cured and tend to have a rather brownish color to the skin.

[Bluewolf]

*snip Broomstick*

Its still stupid to basically say "Oh tanning should be banned, pale skin is nicer anyway". It pretty much makes it sound like her argument for banning tanning is partially riddled with bias. I am not sure if that was what she was aiming for anyway.

Oh and why people tan? For a start its seen as part of the celeb culture lifestyle. Look at magazines of lovely tanned big name people etc etc. It fits into that fantasy life of glamour and culture. So in a sense, cultural peer pressure. Another reason that was mentioned before, which links back to the celeb stuff is the idea that their skin is imperfect and they want lovley tanned skin. I am going to guess that tanning in makes people feel better in seasons like Winter though don't quote on me.

I am not really for banning tanning though. Like smoking its more of a choice thing yet it is less harmful than smoking is. I guess you could put forward studies like these and try and dismantle that idea of a celeb life but the latter is far harder then the former.

[Batman]

Banning tanning is asinine. Apart from the fact that you can always go outside and get your skin cancer the natural way, at least the people arguing for banning smoking or alcohol have a case-both physically harm people (or at least potentially physically harm people) other than the user. Tanning does NOT. And not only do I happen to like HAVING a tan (not that I ever get much of one, mind you), I also disagree pale people look better (always depends on your definition of 'pale' of course), I like people having a tan. A HEALTHY tan. Tanning salons seem to often result in a tan that looks painted on compared to one obtain by sunbathing (at least in my admittedly not necessarily objective opinion).

And how one can assume tanning salons are less dangerous than sunbathing is beyond me. It takes a given amount of UV to get your skin to tan and that amount increases your chances to get skin cancer (if not all that significantly), why would the same amount from a different source NOT do so?

[Broomstick]

Natural tanning tends to be limited in extent (though not always, for those who tan in the nude a lot). Using a tanning bed allows areas that are normally covered in public to be exposed to UV rays. Some of those areas have skin more delicate than, say, your forearms and may be more vulnerable to damage.

[Batman]

I'm talking about areas that ARE visible in public (faces, arms, legs, necks) and as I said I might be wrong, but to me tanning salon tans look just artificial. Possibly because on a lot of people, they are OVERDONE since as has been pointed out by others a lot of salon tanners just don't know when to quit.

[ArmorPierce]

I read that as "skin that has been radiation burned into the appearance of a different ethnic group is ugly" as opposed to "skin that is naturally dark is ugly". It's a fine distinction, but I think it's there. Those who naturally have highly productive melanocytes can have beautiful, dark skin. Those who are as pale by birth as the Duchess, however, look like shit when they insist on tanning heavily for years.

Then why didn't she just say that? Even if it is what she meant, what she said did come out as racist.

Quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe that when she said, "which would really be quite nice, seeing as pale skin is far more attractive anyway." she actually meant dark skin on white people is ugly, but on naturally dark people their skin dark skin is just as attractive. It seems to me her stating her opinion as fact that pale skin is more attractive regardless, which is in fact what she said.

[Broomstick]

OK, I can also see where it could be read as racist, too. At best, it was clumsily put.

[ray245]

Seriously, I have to wonder what is so unattractive about pale skin to begin with. It seems weird that people would even want to apply fake tan on their body, just to ensure their skin colour looks "healthy".

[Simon_Jester]

It's an aesthetic thing. Some people like blue, others prefer green. No one can really explain why they like blue or prefer green in objective terms; you cannot convince someone to change their favorite color easily.

Duchess Zeon likes pale skin, someone else likes medium skin, yet a third person likes dark skin. Which preference dominates culture at a given time is largely a matter of luck and factors so arbitrary that they might as well be random.

[Redleader34]

Why do people like tanning again, I mean as someone who is probally darker than...95% of people who do tan, I never got the appeal of sitting out and trying to get tan to be honest.

[Broomstick]

Don't discount societal pressure - I've been told for years to "get some color" and admonished for showing my white legs in public. I mean, just imagine the reaction if someone told a black woman her legs were "too dark" to show off while wearing a skirt, yet people feel free to tell me my legs are too white. There really is social/peer pressure on the pale-skinned to tan, even if it's not obvious to those outside the group. It's just as real as the pressure on women to lose weight, men to put on muscle, or any other arbitrary standard in regards to appearance.

Now, as to the origin of that pressure to sun-darken pale skin, that's a different question.

[Shroom Man 777]

I just love it when fads that play to people's vanities are revealed to be either stupid or actually unhealthy. It's just like making money by selling useless stuff that people waste copious amounts of monies on (monies that can be used on more important things) just so they can look prettier to their dumb vain and shallow peers.

And it's really something that it took them this long to figure out that tanning beds aren't healthy. UV radiation from the sun causes skin cancer, but UV radiation from a machine built to pump out UV radiation... doesn't? Tee-hee!

[Spin Echo]

My better half, a bioinformaticist, is amused by this thread. He says it reminds him of the alcohol thread a while back, where people failed to grasp the concept of relative risk and dose response.

While there is no doubt too much tanning is bad for you, too little sunlight can also be bad for you. It's a pretty well established link that the less sunlight an area gets, the higher the mortality incidence of breast cancer, ovarian, prostate and colon cancers. Doctors in Norway will recommend people to go tanning salon during the winter because the benefit to prevent those cancers outweighs the potential risk from melanoma.

Duchess Zeon likes pale skin, someone else likes medium skin, yet a third person likes dark skin. Which preference dominates culture at a given time is largely a matter of luck and factors so arbitrary that they might as well be random.

The beauty preferences are typically dominated by whatever ideal is difficult. Pale skin used to be the ideal because most people had to be outside working in the sun and so only the rich could afford to be inside and keep their fair skin. Then with the shift of workers to factory jobs inside, the trend shifted to tan, as the rich could afford to idle outside or take trips to the south. In Norway, you have ads for tanning salons and bronzers. When I was in Kuala Lumpur, there were ads everywhere for lotions to whiten your skin.