Tanning Before 30 Triples Skin Cancer Risk

I used to love the tanning bed when I was in my early 20's. Then I had to have a mole removed that appeared suddenly on my back. Although it came back negative for cancer, it was enough to scare me from tanning.

Now I'm so pale and self tanners just look orange on my pale skin. But at least I stopped early enough that I don't have the wrinkles and skin damage that my friends have from the tanning beds.

For anybody who has ever used tanning beds or made it a habit of laying out in the sun, I cannot stress enough the importance of annual skin cancer screenings with a dermatologist. It just may save your life!

i know so many young women and teenagers who tan and don't seem to care about the risks. One person i know says "we live in SoCal if you are not tan you look out of place".

Researchers have just discovered that The SUN is to blame for hundreds of thousands of cancer deaths every year. Doctors now say the sun is evil and deadly and the only way to save yourself is to take up a nocturnal existence and to use spf50+ at night because remember that moon is just covering for his homeboy the sun and shooting them death rays right back at us when the sun is working on frying humans on the other side of the world. Scientists have yet to discover a motive for it's plan to destroy human kind. It's reported that several spacecraft have actually been sent to consult the sun however the vehicles were destroyed by the suns intense raging heat. A sign that he is not willing to negotiate a peaceful existence of both himself and the human race. On the bright side, the suns powerful death rays provide warmth, allow for plants growth, and make white people less pasty and transparent.

nice that we know this study now - after i've been tanning for years. granted i stopped tanning quite a few years ago, but there was a period of time that it was my means to get a nice golden color. oh well. let's just hope that i'm taking good care of myself now to counter act the ill effects that i may have faced before.

Lately I've been getting really paranoid about all of the tanning - both sunbed and natural sun - that I did when I was younger. Heck, I still love laying in the sun to a certain extent.

drwilliamhcool, thank you for making me laugh. i was having a rotten day

I can't tan...I just burn and peel. So I use self-tanners if I want to have some color. I don't avoid the sun completely, but I do have to be careful if I'm out for any extended period of time.

i use a tanning bed after years and years of being unhappy with being pale and disappointed with all the self tanners out there (and believe me, i tried. real tanning was my last choice) so i go maybe twice a week for 16 minutes. i'm not out in the sun other than that very often and i wear sunscreen when i do. also i have derm checks and do my own skin checks.

i know it's bad, but it makes me happier. i'll be as careful as i can, and i know there's a chance that i can do everything right and i'd still get cancer... this is true for anyone.

how often and for how long would allow yourself of your child to spend on that Long Island NY or Bermuda beach?

Not too long before you got thoughts of burning and skin cancer.

If this is the case why do indoor tanning and sunbed salons encourage unlimited monthly UV exposure packages to their clientele?

I would say its profit driven.

If you owned a tanning salon would you REALLY encourage your clients to only come 20x a year at $15 a session? That would be $300 in revenue for you per client and if you wanted a $300,000 revenue stream, the goal for most salons and thats conservative, you would need 1,000 steady clients.

With the utter saturation of indoor salons in the USA, approx. 28,000 with an additional 50,000 gyms and nail/hair salons offering a sunbed or two, thats 1,560 indoor tanning salons per state.

The reality is that mot salons have a steady client base of avid tanners of about 250 people. Using my math above that translates to $75,000 in revenue. It costs the average salon with 6 to 8 units about $6,000 per month to operate. They would have no profit. So instead they encourage the tanners to keep buying monthly packages and visit the sunbed more like 100 times per year and at $15 a pop 250 steady tanners you now have your $300,000 in revenue and your making a hell of a profit.

The bottom line is business and not true health concern for the general public. The ITA and Euro associations will continue to accuse the medical world of using “junk science” instead of truly acknowledging the fact that the sunbed operator is in it for the profit. If a few people have to die along the way so be it. That sure sounds like the tobacco mindset to me.

We believe that a major aspect of skin cancer prevention is to teach the patient what they can do for themselves. Skin Cancer Clinic

I love tanning... I haven't used a bed in a few months because theres nothing like the real thing, but I love being out in the sun, even with SPF I still get a decent tan...the way I see it, you're going to die anyway, why not enjoy your life if thats your thing. Plus, its really crappy for them to release that info during a recession... so many tanning salons where I live will most likely go out of business now... maybe the government wants us to continue to be in a recession.

oh, forgot to add, as if we didn't already know how harmful it was. There are always signs everywhere about 'tanning at your own risk' or whatever. I know so many bed addicts though, its scary. Most of them already have had moles removed, most non cancerous, but still scary.

Yes, let's not tell people how bad tanning is, and discourage them from tanning even though it may kill them, because tanning helps the economy.

We shouldn't tell people cigarettes are bad either. The tobacco companies may suffer.

I’m not a scientist, (nor do I play one on TV) but I can assure you tanning is not “as deadly as arsenic or mustard gas”, as the study suggests. I can say that with complete confidence. I know people who tan regularly and they do not show symptoms of someone exposed to either substance. The claim is absurd. The message of this study is almost “hysterical” in its portrayal of the risk of using a tanning bed. The claim is sensational at best. It doesn’t sound like a statement from a reasoned scientist organization, it sounds like an organization with an agenda. It reminds me of the old “smoking pot will lead to certain death because you’ll run around tearing your close off and throw yourself off a building” lecture our parents used to give us a children.
One other note; earlier this week a Reuters article quoted comments from the scientists who conducted the testing. One of which states "The relationship between UV exposure and an increased risk of developing skin cancer is only likely to arise where over-exposure -- i.e. burning -- has taken place,” That’s right, only if over-exposure occurs. (I’ve not seen that in the headlines) Oh and if you’re feeling good about yourself because you don’t tan, just wait, another determination of the study said, “The experts put tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation in the same category as cigarettes, arsenic and the sun itself.”
On no………not as dangerous as……………Sunshine.

we're all going to die anyways.