|The Life Extension Foundation Forums > LEF Public Forums > Lifestyles > Think Tanning Salons Went Out With the 80s? ||Forum Quick Jump|
Date Joined Dec 2000
Missing Key Value : en-US, 358 : 310
| Missing Key Value : en-US, 641 8/16/2001 9:06 PM (GMT -4) |
|Even here in California where we have a lot of natual sun, I see people using tanning salons, mainly because they dont have enough time to sit in the sun. Dumb & dumber...|
--From Cox News Service--
Think Tanning Salons Went Out With the 80s? Wake Up and Smell the Coconuts!
By Catherine Brophy Fashion Wire Daily NY
August 10, 2001
When Elyse Sivin moved from downtown New York to Queens three months ago, she sought out a tanning salon, before looking for a dry cleaners or a good coffee spot. Sivin, 27, is a self-proclaimed tanning-bed addict. She visits Beach Bum Tanning once or twice a week to keep her cinnamon-stick complexion and she wont stop, despite constant warnings from her mother, boyfriend and friends on the imminent dangers of too much ultraviolet (UV) exposure, which dermatologists believe causes skin cancer, including the deadliest form, melanoma.
But Sivin is hardly alone with her stubborn desire to keep a perfect tan. Despite news surrounding sun damage and experts urging people to wear sunscreen, more than one million Americans visit tanning salons daily, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. And melanoma is one of the only two major human cancers still increasing in incidence, according to the Journal of National Cancer Institutes Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1973-1998 published in June 2001.
In fact, despite regular media coverage about the harms of tanning, habits havent changed much since the 70s when the first tanning salons began to open in the U.S. Soon after the opening of Cedarhurst Tan in New York in 1979, regulars would stop by on their lunch hour to get a fast tan, that they believed made them look better. Since then, the only thing that has changed is technology. Todays clients lay in sophisticated, high-powered beds with names like the Sting Bee and the Matrix.
The dermatology community rejects the common conception that tanning beds are safer than sunlight, an idea that was heralded by bed manufacturers and salon owners when high-powered UVA beds came into the picture. UVB rays are known as the burning rays. When old beds that emitted mostly UVB light were upgraded, less burning occurred leading many to believe less injury was inflicted. UVA rays penetrate the skin more deeply than UVB, affecting collagen and elastin fibers as well as the skins immune system.
When UV light hits the skin, the skin cells go into a high-energy state, resulting in unpaired electrons that steal electrons from cells surrounding them. These injured cells are what scientists believe to form the seeds of cancer. In defense, the skins melanocytes (pigmentation cells) increase production of pigment, causing a bronze effect. These pigmentation cells protect the skins cells from DNA damage, which can lead to skin cancer.
Science aside, a single 15 minute session exposes the body to the same amount of harmful UV light as a full day at the beach, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.
In the war against tanning, women like Sivin who tan at least once a week show that the message isnt getting through. Vanity prevails. Being bronzed is still synonymous with being beautiful and having a healthy glow. Womens desires for a bronzed body - S la Brazilian model Gisele Bundchen - have not waned. I dont think that very pale skin looks particularly attractive, said Hilary Lasken, 23, who admits to tanning every so often when her skin looks especially pale, Oddly enough I feel healthier after I go, because I think I look healthier. Everything looks better on me when Im tanned- makeup, clothes, my hair.
People look better tan. People want to look good, said Greg Henson, owner of Heartland Supplies in Kansas, one of the largest tanning salon manufacturers in the country, whos sales projections will reach $15 million this year, up from $12 million in 1999. Henson just returned from the Indoor Tanning Associations Tanning Expo 2001 in Las Vegas, where industry executives convened to discuss new marketing tactics and to raise money for their own research, which they hope will prove how using tanning beds positively affects hypertension or how moderate UV exposure is good for the skin.
Both Sivin and Lasken know exposing their skin to too much UV radiation can lead to long term damage. Lasken tries to keep it to a minimum because I realize it can be detrimental to my skin. Sivin insists if she ever had a pre-cancerous lesion she would stop.
Cancer threats, however, wont stop everyone. Tanning bed addicts exist, said Bruce Katz, a New York dermatologist who once removed an early melanoma from a 23-year-old tanning salon employee. She could not stop tanning, Katz said. Because of her problem, eventually, she wouldnt see me anymore, he said. Just as women will starve themselves to be thin, some women will fry themselves to be tan. Many dermatologists see patients who are unwilling to break the habit even after they have had a precancerous lesion.
Listening to ones doctor is one thing, heeding his or her advice for the sake of beauty is another. I dont expect them to tell me anything different than they already have. This is probably why I havent been back for a skin check, Lasken said.
Sivin has never received a skin check and despite melanoma running in her family, she sticks to her weekly routine.
I will stop someday, she said. Just not yet.
|Back to Top|
Date Joined May 2001
Missing Key Value : en-US, 358 : 12
| Missing Key Value : en-US, 641 8/21/2001 11:53 AM (GMT -4) |
|Im confused after reading these posts and Dr. Loren Pickarts article. Would Tom kindly share his opinion based on whatever scientific research is available to him.|
1) Is some sun exposure (enough to produce melanin and/or vitamin D) more good than bad?
::*If* you are going to do some activity for which you must be out in the sun for long periods, then building up a tan by the production of melanin would be beneficial. But if you do not have to be out in the sun for long periods, melanin is of no benefit and the sun time to gain it and a tan is potentially harmful! ::
2) Are tanning booths rays more or less harmful than the suns?
::The newer booths are more harmful than the older ones because they use the deeper penetrating UVA and you stay in them for a longer period of time to acquire the same amount of tan which UVB would give you in a shorter time.::
Do tanning beds provide any benefits as in better vitamin D absorbtion?
::Unless you cover virtually all your bodies surface area, it takes very little daily exposure to get enough vitamin D, much less than enough to get a tan. Also vitamin D is in milk, other food products and cheaply obtainable from pills.::
Or relief from SAD?
::SAD is generally relieved by full spectrum visible light, not including UV at all.::
3) Are sunscreens recommended when not necessary?
::A sunscreen which blocks UVB only is contraindicated because it allows you to stay in the sun too long (all the while receiving UVA) without burning. If you use a sunscreen that stops both UVB and UVA, then you will be fully protected.::
That is, for exposure of a short duration (not long enough to burn) is it better to wear a sunscreen or not?
::*If* you stay in the sun only for a time for which you would not burn without a sunscreen, then *any* screen during that time would be better than none! However, the problem is that you cannot know when that time arrives if you are wearing a sunscreen and thus with a UVB protection only, you are most likely to stay longer than unprotected burning time.::
|Back to Top|
Date Joined Jan 2001
Missing Key Value : en-US, 358 : 22
| Missing Key Value : en-US, 641 8/22/2001 8:27 AM (GMT -4) |
|>Im confused after reading these posts and Dr. Loren Pickarts article. |
>Would Tom kindly share his opinion based on whatever scientific
>research is available to him.
>1) Is some sun exposure (enough to produce melanin and/or vitamin
>D) more good than bad?
>::*If* you are going to do some activity for which you
>must be out in the sun for long periods, then
>building up a tan by the production of melanin would
>be beneficial. But if you do not have to be
>out in the sun for long periods, melanin is of
>no benefit and the sun time to gain it and
>a tan is potentially harmful! ::
Melanin, having anti-oxidant qualities and DNA (and gene) protecting properties would seem to a benefit of some sun.
::True enough, but perhaps it is only protecting you from the UVA, B and C from which you do not need protection, if you do not get it! Truly, the only way to fully resolve this would be to run an experiment where one group stayed completely out of the sun and got their vitamin D from foods and supplements, and the other groups went out in the sun for varying periods of time and then see who lives the longest and the healthiest. I dont think anyone is going to do such a clinical trial anytime soon. Perhaps some kind of epidemiological study would be of some benefit. Until, that is done all we can do is guess and argue based on very partial evidence and our own like or dislike of the sun and being suntaned.::
|Back to Top|
Date Joined Jan 2001
Missing Key Value : en-US, 358 : 22
| Missing Key Value : en-US, 641 11/5/2001 8:49 AM (GMT -4) |
|In another forum Dr.Proctor, responding to a question about the danger of sun exposure, had this to say: I would not worry too much about minor exposures. There is even some reason to suppose that a little sun is better than none at all. Otherwise, wear a hat, avoid the middle of the day. etc....|
::That is reasonable advice, IMO. It would be very interesting to know the basis for his some reason to suppose, but I have found that Proctor is generally very cryptic and provides little detail, even if pushed, except directly about his own research and patent interests.::
|Back to Top|
|Currently it is Friday, May 24, 2013 6:48 PM (GMT -4)|
There are a total of 38,084 posts in 7,744 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|Missing Key Value : en-US, 703|
|This forum has 9706 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, LivingLongHopefully.|
1 Guest(s), 0 Registered Member(s) are currently online. Details
|Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3|
dotNetBB © 2000-2013
All Contents Copyright © 2004, Life Extension™. All rights reserved.