Why Do People Use Tanning Rooms If They Know They Are Dangerous?

[Spacescifi]

Help me understand please.

I am at the gym and have seen several people walk into the tanning rooms.

As I am not white I have no need for tanning, but I tend to wonder why they want it knowing there are dangers/risks.

So perhaps you could enlighten me?

My thoughts on why:

1. A perception of beauty. Women dye their hair blond and tan to get that Barbie or Baywatch look at the beach or gym. Guys? I dunno really, I guess they like the look. Even my boss says he needs a tan when he looks at his pale legs when wearing shorts.

2. They either minimize the danger of UV lamps in their heads or think a few times won't kill them. Or they know a Barbie-like friend who tans all the time and they are'nt dead so it must be OK right?

3. I dunno, but maybe some dislike how pale their skin is and wish it were golden or orange, thus the tanning booth popularity. Ironically in some Asian countries lightening their skin to make it pale is what they do to look beautiful.

4. They are fine with pale skin but like having the option of changing their skin and hair color like a chameleon.

Since I am not white but know my mindset, I can say honestly I would not use tanning booths if I was. And if friends mocked ne for being pale and I grew tired of it I would just work outside, mow the lawn or go outside more. Or I would just ignore it or say "So? Cancer and me are not exactly BFFs."

 

Thoughts?

Edited July 22, 2023 by Spacescifi

[Nuke]

because if i sat out on my deck nakid id get arrested. 

[Spacescifi]

10 minutes ago, Nuke said:

because if i sat out on my deck nakid id get arrested. 

Oh I get that (I understand).

Maybe the difference between a tanned face and a pale body is so jarring to look at in the mirror that they rather just do the full body tan. Maybe that's it?

 

Since for anyone with naturally tan colored skin, the difference is no where near as pronounced.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Spacescifi

[Nuke]

i honestly dont care much for tans, but i got me a pretty good trucker tan just getting some sun this summer. its been a fairly nice one as far as alaskan summers go. there are health benefits from getting sun, but too much and it becomes a risk for skin cancer. tanning beds are at least a controlled way to get those benefits, but overuse can cause some pretty horrific side effects. its probibly fine once and awhile, but people who go every month or so are probibly cooking themselves. 

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

i honestly dont care much for tans, but i got me a pretty good trucker tan just getting some sun this summer. its been a fairly nice one as far as alaskan summers go. there are health benefits from getting sun, but too much and it becomes a risk for skin cancer. tanning beds are at least a controlled way to get those benefits, but overuse can cause some pretty horrific side effects. its probibly fine once and awhile, but people who go every month or so are probibly cooking themselves. 

You are absolutely right. In moderation it's fine, but too much is lethal. In California it is so hot you need only to put your arm out the window as you drive to feel a burning sensation on your skin.

You could cook eggs without power if you have a cast iron pan and put it outside where the sun hits hardest.

[kerbiloid]

They are vampires, so pale and afraid of sun, but still need UV for vitamine D production.

So, they invented the coffin-like tanning devices.

Also they wear dark glasses to hide their eyes from occasional viewer.

[Spacescifi]

12 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

They are vampires, so pale and afraid of sun, but still need UV for vitamine D production.

So, they invented the coffin-like tanning devices.

Also they wear dark glasses to hide their eyes from occasional viewer.

 

Omitting the vampire part, what you said is true... besides, if it were true that would make you one as well if I am not mistaken.

[kerbiloid]

18 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Omitting the vampire part, what you said is true... besides, if it were true that would make you one as well if I am not mistaken.

Like the people who live at the sea and never swim, because it's trivial, I live in a sunny place and never go tanning intentionally.

[AlamoVampire]

Well i think it boils down to a few things:

1. Vanity driven by impossible beauty standards

2. a refusal to or inability to fathom long term risks

3. a byproduct or coconspirator to point 2 is a misplaced belief that skin cancer wont happen to them.

bottom line its not worth cooking yourself either the old way by direct solar means or tanning bed.

001507232023

[Superfluous J]

I think this can be described in its entirety with this Urban Dictionary entry

 https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=That+will+be+a+future+me+problem

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Superfluous J

[Nuke]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Like the people who live at the sea and never swim, because it's trivial, I live in a sunny place and never go tanning intentionally.

the water is less than 50 yards away from my front door.  but im not getting in, its too cold. 

[tater]

I think sun/UV exposure is probably overrated as a danger. Clearly being badly sunburned is not desirable, but exposure short of that is what we evolved for. A huge % of the population are vitamin D insufficient. Lighter skinned people need less sunlight to make their own than darker skinned people (the latter being more likely to have insufficiency in northern climates since insolation is lower here than in equatorial regions they evolved in. Lighter skinned people evolved lighter skin from the darker skin we all had at one time to grab up the less available sunlight).

So now we live in a world where people are inside much of the time, covered with clothes virtually all the time in the sun (except at the beach), and we all get less sun than we evolved to get. The obvious solution is to take vit D. As for the aesthetics, I spend a decent amount of time outside, and my arms, face and neck are always "tan," but even wearing shorts to hike in summer, my legs are pretty pale, lol. When I was younger I think I spent enough time at the beach or in shorts that my legs were tan as well.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joim.12251

 

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 

[AlamoVampire]

@tater I think you are underestimating the risk of UV-A and UV-B radiation present in sunlight. My grandfather had skin cancer cryogenically removed from his head. I cannot recall the type of skin cancer he had. My father in recent years had to have basal cell carcinoma surgically excised from his right cheek which has left a noticeable scar. The common link between them? Spending decent amounts of time outdoors. Both (grandfather passed in 06) are/were avid golfers. My own mother would routinely require cryosurgery to remove precancerous lesions from her which resulted from repeated exposure in her youth to forced tanning by her mother when my mom was a child. In the last few years (5-7) she has not been to her dermatologist and I doubt her care facility would take her there now. What do all 3 of my relatives also have in common beyond bring lighter skinned? The majority of the UV exposure was in northern latitudes in Ohio and Michigan. Yes my father has also received UV damage here in the state we live in now (southern state) but that only increases risk. I STRONGLY encourage you to see a dermatologist to be on the safe side. From what I can see in your post it seems you share similar risk factors as my relatives along with the belief that its not as big a risk as it actually is. But I only can speak from what Ive seen happen to my own family. My advice is just that, advice from a rando hoping the best for you and any who read my words.

212107232023

[tater]

20 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@tater I think you are underestimating the risk of UV-A and UV-B radiation present in sunlight. My grandfather had skin cancer cryogenically removed from his head. I cannot recall the type of skin cancer he had. My father in recent years had to have basal cell carcinoma surgically excised from his right cheek which has left a noticeable scar. The common link between them? Spending decent amounts of time outdoors. Both (grandfather passed in 06) are/were avid golfers. My own mother would routinely require cryosurgery to remove precancerous lesions from her which resulted from repeated exposure in her youth to forced tanning by her mother when my mom was a child. In the last few years (5-7) she has not been to her dermatologist and I doubt her care facility would take her there now. What do all 3 of my relatives also have in common beyond bring lighter skinned? The majority of the UV exposure was in northern latitudes in Ohio and Michigan. Yes my father has also received UV damage here in the state we live in now (southern state) but that only increases risk. I STRONGLY encourage you to see a dermatologist to be on the safe side. From what I can see in your post it seems you share similar risk factors as my relatives along with the belief that its not as big a risk as it actually is. But I only can speak from what Ive seen happen to my own family. My advice is just that, advice from a rando hoping the best for you and any who read my words.

The point is you need to look at all cause mortality. People who spend more time outdoors can suffer from more skin cancers—yet still die less often than people who hide inside, and succumb to heart disease because they sit around like tubs of goo instead of getting out in the world. That is the point. The answer to your claim is to look at all cause mortality as a function of lifetime sun exposure. If you are right, people who spend more time outdoors should live shorter lives.

Single cause concern WRT heath is virtually always a bad idea (the last 3 years should have taught literally everyone this). It's all a series of trades. Even smoking is probably a trade off. It's the substantial cancer risk vs weight (think smokers tend to lower BMI). Smoking is so bad in terms of cancer risk that any weight benefit is lost—and you can not be fat by not eating garbage, so best solution is to NOT smoke, and not eat crap. Sun is beneficial, exercise outdoors is beneficial (health and mental health), down side is over exposure. Easy enough to mitigate by not getting sunburned (where the bulk of the problem lies). So loads of outside time, try not to get sunburned.

 

 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32918215/

Quote

Active sun exposure habits have a dual effect; it increases the incidence of skin cancer, but also improves the prognosis in terms of all-cause mortality. In a low solar intensity region, we should carefully assess both risk and benefits of sun exposure in order to obtain balanced recommendations.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400257/

Quote

Insufficient Sun Exposure Has Become a Real Public Health Problem

This article aims to alert the medical community and public health authorities to accumulating evidence on health benefits from sun exposure, which suggests that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem. Studies in the past decade indicate that insufficient sun exposure may be responsible for 340,000 deaths in the United States and 480,000 deaths in Europe per year

340k dead per year.

(I found those 2 papers AFTER typing my initial response, BTW, so it looks like I was on the right track)

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

In the US we'd label the last guy "Plumber"

Edited July 24, 2023 by tater

[AlamoVampire]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Easy enough to mitigate by not getting sunburned (where the bulk of the problem lies). So loads of outside time, try not to get sunburned.

Neither my grandfather received sunburns to his scalp nor has my father to his face to any substantial degree yet BOTH suffered confirmed skin cancers. I am by blood of Norwegian, Swedish and Irish heritage and have been burned by the sun so I know beyond any doubt that I am at risk myself. 
You tout those studies as if they guarantee you a life free of skin cancer so long as you avoid sunburn. I can beyond doubt state with absolute certainty you are 100% wrong. UV-A and UV-B need not BURN to increase your risk. Think Im joking?

Verify my claim. I in-fact INSIST ON IT! The embedded link is from The American Cancer Society. Hand-wave all you wish but reality is UV is a known risk factor that never needs burn you. I am now walking away having said what I needed and gave advice, I will ignore any response you try here on this subject for we have reached the impasse of fact vs denial.

220607232023

011807242023

Edited July 24, 2023 by AlamoVampire

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, tater said:

In the US we'd label the last guy "Plumber"

In Commonwealth and Japan the Truck Driver should be mirrored.

[tater]

18 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Neither my grandfather received sunburns to his scalp nor has my father to his face to any substantial degree yet BOTH suffered confirmed skin cancers. I am by blood of Norwegian, Swedish and Irish heritage and have been burned by the sun so I know beyond any doubt that I am at risk myself. 
You tout those studies as if they guarantee you a life free of skin cancer so long as you avoid sunburn. I can beyond doubt state with absolute certainty you are 100% wrong. UV-A and UV-B need not BURN to increase your risk. Think Im joking?

Verify my claim. I in-fact INSIST ON IT! The embedded link is from The American Cancer Society. Hand-wave all you wish but reality is UV is a known risk factor that never needs burn you. I am now walking away having said what I needed and gave advice, I will ignore any response you try here on this subject for we have reached the impasse of fact vs denial. Best wishes Tater may we discourse friendly elsewhere.

Don't care. Anecdote is irrelevant. [snip] You claim in the quote above that I "tout those studies as if they guarantee you a life free of skin cancer so long as you avoid sunburn." I said no such thing. Do better.

I said that the benefits of sun exceed the risks (true). I said that sunburn is the bulk of risk—it is.

Everything I said was appropriately conditional, and about people at large, not specific, anecdotal cases. The reality is that all cause mortality is NOT increased with increased sun exposure.

That link you provided says exactly nothing. Sun can damage skin. Duh, I stipulated that was true from the start. You seem to read my argument as "I am invulnerable to the sun, and so is everyone!" When in fact I said, "The sun can cause increased skin cancer, which can kill you—but the benefits of sun exposure (due in part to the activities that result in exposure, not the actual sun) apparently exceed the risk.

All this is multivariable. If your cardio health is increased because you hike, or bike, your chance of death from cardiac issues drops—in return your risk from skin cancer might increase. If the cancer increase is profound, bad choice, if it is low compared to the benefit, it's a good choice. If it's a wash... no difference. Course with the bike you could be killed by a car (greater risk than sun I'd imagine).

The total US melanoma death rate is ~2.5:100,000.

The death rate for cars is ~12:100,000.

Bottom line is more sun exposure is associated with lower death rates.

Or live inside, whatever.

[snip]

Edited July 24, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[kerbiloid]

54 minutes ago, tater said:

The total US melanoma death rate is ~2.5:100,000.

The death rate for cars is ~12:100,000.

Conclusion:  cars significantly  decrease the melanoma death rate by giving it not enough time to appear.

***

Interesting, is the melanine-rich skin really better protected from the harmful UV, or this is just an armchair science like:

"The Africa is full of sun, the Africans are dark-skinned, so the melanine protects them by absorbing UV.
It's an adaptive mechanism for sunny climate. For example, the white-skinned Europeans in Africa suffer from UV much more often, it's a medical statistics".

But maybe this just means that the white population of Africa is observed more often? Just baby black Africans in a village get UV problems as often but are not observed, and die before getting into any statistics?

I mean, when the melanine is in an animal fur, it of course protects from UV, because the hair cells are already separated from the organism, so if they are damaged, nobody cares.
But when the melanine is in a cell of skin, this means that it absorbs only the UV which already has broken into the living cell. So, why should a the dark skin be more protective?

Edited July 24, 2023 by kerbiloid

[cryptonian]

I thnk people are not aware of it. If we educate them, they may change 

[Spacescifi]

16 hours ago, tater said:

Don't care. Anecdote is irrelevant. [snip] You claim in the quote above that I "tout those studies as if they guarantee you a life free of skin cancer so long as you avoid sunburn." I said no such thing. Do better.

I said that the benefits of sun exceed the risks (true). I said that sunburn is the bulk of risk—it is.

Everything I said was appropriately conditional, and about people at large, not specific, anecdotal cases. The reality is that all cause mortality is NOT increased with increased sun exposure.

That link you provided says exactly nothing. Sun can damage skin. Duh, I stipulated that was true from the start. You seem to read my argument as "I am invulnerable to the sun, and so is everyone!" When in fact I said, "The sun can cause increased skin cancer, which can kill you—but the benefits of sun exposure (due in part to the activities that result in exposure, not the actual sun) apparently exceed the risk.

All this is multivariable. If your cardio health is increased because you hike, or bike, your chance of death from cardiac issues drops—in return your risk from skin cancer might increase. If the cancer increase is profound, bad choice, if it is low compared to the benefit, it's a good choice. If it's a wash... no difference. Course with the bike you could be killed by a car (greater risk than sun I'd imagine).

The total US melanoma death rate is ~2.5:100,000.

The death rate for cars is ~12:100,000.

Bottom line is more sun exposure is associated with lower death rates.

Or live inside, whatever.

 

Exercise literally recycles your blood. It's like an oil change for your blood. Cancer is when blood and or other cells mutate and become unhealthy.

A good diet and moderate exercise is good as a help to prevent cancer.

If you really, really, want cancer though:

1. Eat red meat every day while drinking large cup of soda.

2. Don't eat fruits or veggies.

3. Don't exercise.

5. Spend a lot of time unprotected in the sun.

Realistically, some other disease might kill a person doing all this first, but if not and they live long then cancer will likely come someday.

[Snark]

Some content has been redacted and/or removed.  Let's not make things personal, folks.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

19 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

reality is UV is a known risk factor

That has been vastly overstated by a small segment of the medical community. 

What you are succumbing to is the expert problem -

Spoiler

Medical mistakes are far too common because each specialist is treating ( or more likely over treating) her own pet organ. No one is considering the whole patient to organize a global, integrated, safe, and effective treatment plan

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/saving-normal/201601/we-have-too-many-specialists-too-few-general-practitioners%3famp

 

 

especially because they only see their narrow field and cannot quantify reasonable risk.  So they default to zero risk... Not paying attention to things outside their specialty that are adversely affected by the zero risk practice. 

... 

The epidemic scourge of rickets in the 19th century was caused by vitamin D deficiency due to inadequate sun exposure and resulted in growth retardation, muscle weakness, skeletal deformities, hypocalcemia, tetany, and seizures. The encouragement of sensible sun exposure and the fortification of milk with vitamin D resulted in almost complete eradication of the disease 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523417/

 

[AlamoVampire]

Centers for Disease Control disagree. American Cancer Society. PubMed as well. Here is s 2013 paper archived in the National Library of Medicine. A word on the subject from the World Health Organization. Care to see what Skin Cancer dot org has to say? How about how UV radiation is used as a waste water disinfectant? EPA fact sheet on it. A Critical Review on Ultraviolet Disinfection Systems against COVID-19 Outbreak: Applicability, Validation, and Safety Considerations. 
 

How about a video on how UV kills microbes? Keep in mind that this is not even close to the doses given by the Sun.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety talking about welding and UV radiation from arc flashing in welding. 

Do not underestimate the carcinogenic or mutagenic power UV has. There are talks and petitions to outright ban teens from using tanning beds as UV radiation is that absolutely dangerous. Yes you can mitigate risks but cannot avoid them.
 

Now, having provided information over and over this formally marks the final commenting post I will be making on this thread. I am done. I am walking away.  I know the risks of UV and have seen first hand the results of those risks. Take heed of those risks or not, its your choice but never dismiss the risks because you think they somehow do not apply. Fare well. May we commiserate in other threads but here in this one I exit.

1830007242023

[Spacescifi]

55 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

Centers for Disease Control disagree. American Cancer Society. PubMed as well. Here is s 2013 paper archived in the National Library of Medicine. A word on the subject from the World Health Organization. Care to see what Skin Cancer dot org has to say? How about how UV radiation is used as a waste water disinfectant? EPA fact sheet on it. A Critical Review on Ultraviolet Disinfection Systems against COVID-19 Outbreak: Applicability, Validation, and Safety Considerations. 
 

How about a video on how UV kills microbes? Keep in mind that this is not even close to the doses given by the Sun.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety talking about welding and UV radiation from arc flashing in welding. 

Do not underestimate the carcinogenic or mutagenic power UV has. There are talks and petitions to outright ban teens from using tanning beds as UV radiation is that absolutely dangerous. Yes you can mitigate risks but cannot avoid them.
 

Now, having provided information over and over this formally marks the final commenting post I will be making on this thread. I am done. I am walking away.  I know the risks of UV and have seen first hand the results of those risks. Take heed of those risks or not, its your choice but never dismiss the risks because you think they somehow do not apply. Fare well. May we commiserate in other threads but here in this one I exit.

1830007242023

 

I have always tended to favor whatever is natural. Going all the way back to childhood.

Why? Because it always worked out... for me anyway. So I learned to trust it.

I tend to prefer what is natural in other areas of life over what is artificial.

Dangerous though the sun may be, I honestly would rather take my chances with the sun than some manmade UV lamp.

Besides, as someone who favors what is natural, I am all about being who you are and being proud of it. Being the best version of you does not necessarily mean you need to radically alter the way you look, especially if it is only temporary and also dangerous.

So while I will never really symphathize with the desire for UV lamps to tan the skin in record time (compared to natural sunlight), I do understand why it's popular.

Still... I am pretty much anti-death and also think smokers are... unwise... to say the least.  Our body is the most precious thing we possess besides the relationships we build with real people.

"Where there is life there is hope."

-Tyr Anasazi

Edited July 25, 2023 by Spacescifi