Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

This just in: tanning beds as deadly as chimney sweepingFollow

#1 Jul 29 2009 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Sure, the survey would rather compare them to smoking or ******** but I like that chimney sweeping was included.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32187497/ns/health-cancer/ wrote:
LONDON - International cancer experts have moved tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer riskcategory, deeming them as deadly as ******* and mustard gas.

For years, scientists have described tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation as "probable carcinogens."

A new analysis of about 20 studies concludes the risk of skin cancer jumps by 75 percent when people start using tanning beds before age 30. Experts also found that all types of ultraviolet radiation caused worrying mutations in mice, proof the radiation is carcinogenic. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal.

The new classification means tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation are definite causes of cancer, alongside tobacco, the hepatitis B virus and chimney sweeping, among others.

...

The classification of tanning beds as carcinogenic was disputed by Kathy Banks, chief executive of The Sunbed Association, a European trade association of tanning bed makers and operators.

"The fact that is continuously ignored is that there is no proven link between the responsible use of sunbeds and skin cancer," Banks said in a statement. She said most users of tanning beds use them less than 20 times a year.


Now, things that stand out to me. It's been proven that UV radiation from tanning beds can cause mutations in mice. I always wonder... how much radiation do these mice get?

I just used a tanning chamber (not a bed) for the first time last week. It was a weird experience. If I ever get trapped in a nuclear reactor, I think it'll look similar. That said, I was only in it for 10 minutes, and while my skin was a little red (but not majorly red and no pain at all) the next day, by two days later there was no trace of a burn. I was thinking using the bed once a week or so might not be bad. However, I can find no concrete figures on what a "safe" tanning amount is. I'm thinking the answer might be "never." Anyone know? Best I can find is "no more than once or twice a week, and never for more than 15 minutes."
#2 Jul 29 2009 at 8:04 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Organizations like NIOSH, will tout an exposure limit that is As Low As Reasonably Attainable (ALARA)for known carcinogens.

It's a risk game. The more you go the greater your risk.

I've never used one just because it seems like a waste of time and money. When my daughter was still under my care, she insisted on going, with her girlfriends, to a tanning place pre-prom. I let her. I don't think she's gone since.

I wouldn't recommend a regular weekly tanning treatment - maybe just for special occasions - if at all. Not only will it up your chances of cancer, over time it will make your skin all leathery - Ick.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#3 Jul 29 2009 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Much safer and cheaper is just using sunless tanning lotion. It's one of the secrets of many Hollywood stars that they never go to tanning beds - that golden glow is 100% fake, from a bottle.

Not long ago, they discovered a natural chemical that activates melanin cells without radiation, for a permanent, natural tan. It's still in animal testing phases, and its way too strong (some of the mice it was used on turned nearly black), but if it can be diluted and its safe for human use, tanning beds AND tanning lotions will be a thing of the past.

#4 Jul 29 2009 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,369 posts
Tanning is overrated. Anyone who disagrees can kiss my pasty white ***.
#5 Jul 29 2009 at 10:01 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Chimney sweeping gives you cancer. In the balls.
#6 Jul 29 2009 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
MentalFrog wrote:
Tanning is overrated. Anyone who disagrees can kiss my pasty white ***.
#7 Jul 29 2009 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Spankatorium Administratix
*****
1oooo posts
*hides behind her tan
____________________________

#8 Jul 30 2009 at 2:42 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,180 posts
I tried a tanning bed once when I was 16 for 15mins (I think), but really didn't feel comfortable, partly because of the nagging feeling that it probably wasn't good for my skin.

I think I'd go for a spray tan if I ever decided that I needed to look nice and brown for an event, until that point I'll stick to pasty white.
#9 Jul 30 2009 at 2:54 AM Rating: Good
LockeColeMA wrote:
I just used a tanning chamber (not a bed) for the first time last week. It was a weird experience. If I ever get trapped in a nuclear reactor, I think it'll look similar. That said, I was only in it for 10 minutes, and while my skin was a little red (but not majorly red and no pain at all) the next day, by two days later there was no trace of a burn. I was thinking using the bed once a week or so might not be bad. However, I can find no concrete figures on what a "safe" tanning amount is. I'm thinking the answer might be "never." Anyone know? Best I can find is "no more than once or twice a week, and never for more than 15 minutes."


Tanning beds are for old ladies that think orange wrinkly skin is classy.

You may or may not fit into that category.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#10 Jul 30 2009 at 3:06 AM Rating: Decent
MentalFrog wrote:
Tanning is overrated. Anyone who disagrees can kiss my shiny metal ***.
Ahem.

Anyway, it's not like it matters; any tan I get is from the giant ball of skyfire.
#11 Jul 30 2009 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
MDenham wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
Tanning is overrated. Anyone who disagrees can kiss my shiny metal ***.
Ahem.

Anyway, it's not like it matters; any tan I get is from the giant ball of skyfire.

It's the evil Day-Star, which most of these people have never encountered.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 Aug 02 2009 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
***
2,211 posts
Debalic wrote:
MDenham wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
Tanning is overrated. Anyone who disagrees can kiss my shiny metal ***.
Ahem.

Anyway, it's not like it matters; any tan I get is from the giant ball of skyfire.

It's the evil Day-Star, which most of these people have never encountered.


I thought that it only exists in stories to scare the children. Is it true? Does it exist?
#13 Aug 02 2009 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
***
2,588 posts
The reason why you don't find "maximum recommended exposure" is because there isn't. Mutation (and hence cancer) always involves some portion of randomness. Some people go tanning once a month or have a couple of sunburns in summer, and they get skin cancer. Other people smoke for 60 years and never get any cancer. Both cases are not the majority, but it happens.

So if you go once a month, average probability for you to get skin cancer is lower than if you went once a week. But you still might get it. That's the thing about cancer.

You just have to think about how important it is for you to be bronzed.
#14 Aug 03 2009 at 4:10 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Professor Turicus wrote:
The reason why you don't find "maximum recommended exposure" is because there isn't. Mutation (and hence cancer) always involves some portion of randomness. Some people go tanning once a month or have a couple of sunburns in summer, and they get skin cancer. Other people smoke for 60 years and never get any cancer. Both cases are not the majority, but it happens.

So if you go once a month, average probability for you to get skin cancer is lower than if you went once a week. But you still might get it. That's the thing about cancer.

You just have to think about how important it is for you to be bronzed.


I live next to the third largest college campus in the US. Being bronzed is totally worth skin cancer.

... ugh, I was just channeling Varrus. I think I won't be going tanning again any time soon.
#15 Aug 03 2009 at 9:48 AM Rating: Decent
Just as well my strong Irish heritage has assured that tanning beds couldn't have done anything for me anyway.

That said, I'm not all that shocked.
#16 Aug 03 2009 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
A strong Irish heritage would only assure that five minutes in a tanning bed would flash-fry all your skin and leave you with cancer.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#17 Aug 03 2009 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Debalic wrote:
A strong Irish heritage would only assure that five minutes in a tanning bed would flash-fry all your skin and leave you with cancer.


Which is why today I put on sun screen and then wore long sleeves and a sun hat. Jonwin had skin cancer and it's not something I want to experience. It's been 33 years since I last tried to get a tan and I'm very happy to be a pale white ghost, hiding from the Sun while on medicine that can increase my chances of getting sun burn.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 233 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (233)