Medical Which method of tanning is safer (cancer-wise)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentallic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the safety of different tanning methods in relation to skin cancer risk. It questions whether shorter exposure to concentrated sunlight using mirrors is safer than longer, conventional sunbathing. Participants note that less intense sunlight over extended periods may reduce peeling, but the safety of this method compared to shorter, high-intensity exposure remains unclear. The consensus reflects current medical thinking that "no tan is a safe tan," emphasizing that any tanning, whether natural or artificial, poses risks. It is suggested that biological adaptation to UV exposure is safer over longer periods, and overexposure can lead to severe burns and increased cancer risk. The conversation also touches on the balance between the harmful effects of UV exposure and the benefits of vitamin D production, with references to articles discussing skin color adaptation in relation to sunlight exposure.
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
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
57K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Back
Top