Is tanning really that bad for you???

[TraxZBT]

Is tanning really all that bad for you? Actually no. A society of tanning bed owners recently funded a study on the subject and it was found that being deprived of UV rays causes cancer, and is especially good at causing cancers that are much, much deadlier than skin cancer. As a matter of fact, can you think of a single person right off hand who has died of skin cancer? I have known people who have died of lung cancer, colon cancer, and so forth, but skin cancer? No, because skin cancer is usually pretty easy to remove.

Can't believe nobody caught this.. Skin cancer itself can kill you... Malignant Melanoma. The cancer itself can spread to other organs. Can't just remove it...

 

[FlexManning]

riiight




girlfriend's aunt. and pretty much every older person I know that has sunned even a a little bit has had some tpe of skin cancer removed.




ever think that is becuase of the different ethic and genetic backgrounds? Almost everyone in norway is white as a ghost, and they have generally not gotten much sun for the last umpteeth thousand years. They are NOT made for sunlight. So, the little light they do get (and now the ones that tan) do not have the genes for it, and have not been darwined off from getting cancer (because of not enough sun in the first place).

Then you have people near the equator, all dark skinned, and all of their ancestors have had copius amounts of sunlight. The people who were predisposed to get cancer from too much sun, or those that deveoped it died off. Darwin. Those that are here now are genetically gifted to NOT develop cancer form sunlight AND they are darkskinned.

Actually, I was saying people near the equator get less cancer period. Skin cancer was only a small part of that. If I'm not mistaken, they get less colon cancer, lung cancer, and so forth.

I don't understand your statement about Norway. You said that they've been "Darwined" off from getting cancer. But I thought I clearly stated there is a higher percentage of cancer in Norway period (though maybe not in those exact words), and I believe they have a fairly high amount of skin cancer as well. However, I doubt that sunbathing is a very common activity in Norway and I would expect that they are fully clothed the majority of the year.

You must hang out in cancer ward if every older person you've known has gotten skin cancer. I've known people who were in the sun so much their skin looked like leather and they never had skin cancer. I've actually seen a lot of what the somewhat biased study indicates, which is those that enjoy frequent moderate amounts of sunlight tend to have less cancer although that's not a very scientific way to look at the matter.

Possibly though, the problem is the "binge" attitude about tanning that most have. A given bodypart might not have been exposed to much sunlight for 5 years yet many will try to get tanned in the course of a vacation. This would explain why many of those who get skin cancer get it in places rarely exposed to the sun like the bottom of the foot. On paper it would seem that getting skin cancer in an area such as the sole of the foot would be an extremely improbably feat yet it happens more than would be thought. Obviously extreme burns to a given section of skin are going to be harmful since we are talking about actual burning often to the point of blistering.

 

[redguru]

Actually, I was saying people near the equator get less cancer period. Skin cancer was only a small part of that. If I'm not mistaken, they get less colon cancer, lung cancer, and so forth.

I don't understand your statement about Norway. You said that they've been "Darwined" off from getting cancer. But I thought I clearly stated there is a higher percentage of cancer in Norway period (though maybe not in those exact words), and I believe they have a fairly high amount of skin cancer as well. However, I doubt that sunbathing is a very common activity in Norway and I would expect that they are fully clothed the majority of the year.

You must hang out in cancer ward if every older person you've known has gotten skin cancer. I've known people who were in the sun so much their skin looked like leather and they never had skin cancer. I've actually seen a lot of what the somewhat biased study indicates, which is those that enjoy frequent moderate amounts of sunlight tend to have less cancer although that's not a very scientific way to look at the matter.

Possibly though, the problem is the "binge" attitude about tanning that most have. A given bodypart might not have been exposed to much sunlight for 5 years yet many will try to get tanned in the course of a vacation. This would explain why many of those who get skin cancer get it in places rarely exposed to the sun like the bottom of the foot. On paper it would seem that getting skin cancer in an area such as the sole of the foot would be an extremely improbably feat yet it happens more than would be thought. Obviously extreme burns to a given section of skin are going to be harmful since we are talking about actual burning often to the point of blistering.

You haven't been to Palma de Mallorca? Scandinavian women tanning nude all over the place, it's like Eden.

 

[krishna]

Yeah, I love your "evidence". Editorials written by doctors. Throughout every link, "some experts suspect" "tanning beds possibly could" "could even" and so forth.

What you're talking about is proof positive of EXACTLY what I'm saying. All this talk yet there isn't a single study in existence which proves it yet the medical community yaps about this stuff constantly. Every link you posted- I read each one- is an editorial which cites theories. Too, each assumes that the given health professionals have an indepth knowledge of different wavelenghts of ultraviolet radiation and the degree to which they are able to penetrate skin.

Each year various theories that sound good on paper are called into question by newer studies such as the idea that calcium intake causes kidney stones, or the premise that cutting down on sodium is the most important factor in regulating hypertension, or that protein intake causes kidney damage and so forth.

I don't think anybody is surprised that 3 given doctors would express their belief that tanning beds are bad for you. In fact, it will probably take at least 5 years before anywhere close to half of doctors will begin admitting that moderate exposure to any type of UV rays can be healthy. We could also probably track down hundreds of doctors who will swear that steroid use causes penis shrinkage. Easier still we could find dermatologists who feel sunscreen should be worn 24 hours a day, even indoors and in winter.

Notice also that any discussion of outdoor activities or tanning lead by a health professional constantly emphasises cancer, cancer, cancer. That's a powerful word to throw around, especially when the majority of the public doesn't realize that with any effort at all put into early detection skin cancer is very, very rarely fatal.

Again, I'm not saying the more is better approach is warranted. I'm simply saying- in a forum where we generally try to be frank and take certain statements from the medical community with a grain of salt- that several aspects of this subject are exaggerated.

I think I'd RATHER believe medical doctors and anatomy professors who actually know the biochemistry of the skin's interaction with UVA and UVB light over you. Like I said, I try to side with the truth. You are obviously an advocate of tanning beds which is fine, but it seems to me like the only reason you're trying to convince people that it's safe is because you need an excuse to justify to yourself that it's ok for you to use them. Go use them...FINE. Just quit trying to convince other's to get skin cancer too.