Which method of tanning is safer (cancer-wise)

  • Context: Medical 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentallic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the safety of different tanning methods in relation to cancer risk. Participants explore various approaches to tanning, including the use of mirrors to concentrate sunlight, prolonged exposure during less intense sunlight hours, and the use of tanning machines. The conversation touches on biological adaptation to UV exposure and the implications of tanning for skin health.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that shorter tanning sessions with concentrated sunlight may be safer than longer, conventional tanning methods.
  • Others argue that prolonged exposure to lower intensity sunlight may reduce the likelihood of peeling and could be safer, although this is not definitively established.
  • One participant mentions that the medical community generally holds the view that "no tan is a safe tan," suggesting that any form of tanning carries risks.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety of tanning machines, with a participant noting that overexposure can lead to skin cancer and complications.
  • Another participant references a Scientific American article discussing the balance between the harmful effects of sunlight and the benefits of vitamin D production in relation to skin color adaptation.
  • There is a request for evidence to support claims about the safety of gradual adaptation to UV exposure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the safety of various tanning methods, with no consensus reached on which method is definitively safer. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to tanning and its associated risks.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of tanning safety, including factors such as intensity of UV exposure, duration of tanning, and individual skin responses. The conversation highlights the need for further evidence and clarification on the biological effects of tanning.

Mentallic
Homework Helper
Messages
3,802
Reaction score
95
I am curious as to which method of tanning is safer (cancer-wise). Either by sitting out in the sun a shorter period with the use of mirrors to concentrate the intensity of the sunlight hitting your skin, or being exposed for longer periods in the conventional way. Maybe even taking this to more of an extreme and tan for even longer in the earlier or later hours of the day when the sun isn't highest in the sky.

I've also noticed that you're less likely to peel if the sunlight is less intense over longer periods, but would this have the same effect as if we tanned for a much shorter period with higher intensities of UV?
 
Biology news on Phys.org


Mentallic said:
I am curious as to which method of tanning is safer (cancer-wise). Either by sitting out in the sun a shorter period with the use of mirrors to concentrate the intensity of the sunlight hitting your skin, or being exposed for longer periods in the conventional way. Maybe even taking this to more of an extreme and tan for even longer in the earlier or later hours of the day when the sun isn't highest in the sky.

I've also noticed that you're less likely to peel if the sunlight is less intense over longer periods, but would this have the same effect as if we tanned for a much shorter period with higher intensities of UV?


Generally any biologic adaptation occurs more safely over longer periods of time and the stimulus is progressive.

Exposure to high energy UV / or very high UV flux is unsafe. Even commercial apparatus used in cosmetic salons can cause severe burns on overexposure, although the energy of the radiation is in theory strictly controlled, and considered in the safe ranges.
 


The current thinking in the medical community on any tan, whether it is naturally or artificially induced, is that "no tan is a safe tan."

You can google the "no tan is a safe tan" phrase to get some popular journalism accounts or you can visit the American Academy of Dermatology website and their http://www.aad.org/media/background/press/PublicServiceAnnoucement.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:


DanP said:
Generally any biologic adaptation occurs more safely over longer periods of time and the stimulus is progressive.
Thanks this is what I'm looking for. Can you possibly provide some evidence to support this claim?

Norman said:
The current thinking in the medical community on any tan, whether it is naturally or artificially induced, is that "no tan is a safe tan."
I was already aware of this, which is why I've asked which tanning method is safer :-p
 


It is safer if you know the limitation of using it but when you over exposure, it can cause skin cancer or complication. The best way when you get a tan (using tanning machines), you should know the limited time to be spend by that machines.
 


How are tanning machines the best way to get a tan?
 


Norman said:
The current thinking in the medical community on any tan, whether it is naturally or artificially induced, is that "no tan is a safe tan."

You can google the "no tan is a safe tan" phrase to get some popular journalism accounts or you can visit the American Academy of Dermatology website and their http://www.aad.org/media/background/press/PublicServiceAnnoucement.html

Some years ago Scientific American had an article about skin color versus sunlight exposure. They reported that in populations that had not migrated, skin color had adjusted to the optimum balance between the detrimental effects of sunlight such as skin cancer and the beneficial effects such as vitamin D production. It seems that lack of vitamin D can be as serious a problem as skin cancer when averaged over large populations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


skeptic2 said:
Some years ago Scientific American had an article about skin color versus sunlight exposure. They reported that in populations that had not migrated, skin color had adjusted to the optimum balance between the detrimental effects of sunlight such as skin cancer and the beneficial effects such as vitamin D production. It seems that lack of vitamin D can be as serious a problem as skin cancer when averaged over large populations.

Very interesting. Thanks for the information. Do you remember off-hand if they actually discussed sun burns and the evolution of skin color? I will attempt to find the article on my own, I just wondered if you remembered.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
57K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K