Forums / Discussion / Q & A

Hello everyone I'm Tami 26 years of age. sad to say but i got pale skin and my best friend suggested me to try tanning so i've tried it and it really looks good on me after that i've always go to the tanning salon twice a week then another friend of mine told me that i should try indoor tanning because it's more easy and more necessary

so i'm wondering is it really true that indoor tanning is a smarter idea ?

No, it's not. Ultraviolet light is classified as a carcinogen (something that causes cancer) Tanning Booths generally Blast you with three times the amount of UVA than the sun. Tanning booths are to skin what cigarettes are to lungs, although sunlight tanning isn't much better.
Harvard has an article about this subject (http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/is-a-tanning-bed-safer-than-sunlight) that goes more in depth about the subject.
It doesn't really matter where the UVA comes from, the same light that causes tanning is also the light that causes cancer, so you really have cancer-free tanning. However, if you feel a darker complexion is worth the health risks, go for it. As far as I know, laying out in the sun is safer than using tanning booths.
I would also encourage you to do a little of your own research if you have concerns, but make sure you are getting your facts from independent health studies, and not from the people who are trying to sell you their tanning bed service. One of these sources has something to gain from lying. :)

I'm really between two sides here if we're dealing with spam or not, because there are no links anywhere.

Oh well, I guess this topic can't hurt anyone.

noooooo….
…

knew i needed that screencap

A "healthy" tan is more of a social desirability thing more than a health thing. Most fair skinned people only need about 10 minutes of sunlight each day, and darker skinned people only need about 15 minutes.

Once you get that, you don't really need any more sun. And it rarely hurts to apply sunscreen, but it can certainly help.
 
I'll add this link though, if you really want to use a tanning bed. The National Institutes of Health tends to be pretty legit:

"The factors that affect UV radiation exposure and research to date on the amount of sun exposure needed to maintain adequate vitamin D levels make it difficult to provide general guidelines. It has been suggested by some vitamin D researchers, for example, that approximately 5–30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM at least twice a week to the face, arms, legs, or back without sunscreen usually lead to sufficient vitamin D synthesis and that the moderate use of commercial tanning beds that emit 2%–6% UVB radiation is also effective [6,20]. Individuals with limited sun exposure need to include good sources of vitamin D in their diet or take a supplement to achieve recommended levels of intake."

Note that it does say "moderate use," so you may want to do more research and gauge what tanning bed exposure times equate to those 5-30 minutes.
 
I also noticed you said "Indoor tanning" over "tanning beds." To be honest, there's probably no difference if you're talking health. The CDC says neither is healthy, and there is no other entity that's more highly regarded perhaps short of the World Health Organization.
 
But if you're set on tanning even with the warning, (I wouldn't suggest paying for it):

One obvious "plus" for tanning beds is that you can easily get a tan over normally exposed parts of your without being indecent or having people stare at you. Just being outside, you can probably just get it for your lower and arms and legs. That's a problem if you live in an apartment or something and don't feel comfortable laying out in a bikini.

Of course, the sun is free. You might be able to open up a window in your place and lay out naked.
 
In either case, I would keep health in mind. Tans are generally a bad sign for skin with regards to health. So whether it's the sun or a tanning bed, don't get "addicted" to getting really tanned.

Could someone explain to me the concept of tanning, and why people do it.

Tanning is one of those really, really strange concepts that i simply never understood.

With this thread it's inconclusive whether or not this counts as spam and every post made in here (except for yours) has been legitimate discussion about tanning and health, while your post in the spam thread earlier amounted to "lel let's troll the spambots because that's worth my time". So I have to ask, what is your point?

Also, posting screenshots from private messages on a public forum. Classy. You're really making an effort to make yourself look good today, aren't you?

Tbh I didn't know OP was a new user when I replied

Some people find Tanned Skin attractive. Personally I'm an old school "Fair-skinned Maiden" type of guy and find Tan-lines to be really unattractive. It's a matter of taste, but I will admit the media makes out Tanned skin to be the standard of beauty.

I dunno about that because make-up comparisons often feature the model having lighter skin after applying the make-up. That's how foundation is often used.

On the other side, tan skin tends to look more healthy than pale skin for certain skin colors.

I think it's just their face looking clearer, not lighter

Tomato, Potato.

They're still not depicted as more tanned.

wanna go tanning?

also its not as bad as linking mod forum topics and screens from supersecret HQ. [you know who you are :)]

i left your name out, but i guess we will never know who i was talking to or even it was me or not.

and RM… just…

hell it was funny

I'm guessing the only reason it's seen as smart is because it removes tan lines if you want it to and it's easy to control so you get the tan you want where you want unlike the actual sun which can leave lines easier and changes all the time and requires you to bend to it, unlike indoor machines which bend to your will. Health-wise as Borike explained they're both equally dangerous, if not the indoor could be more since it's more concentrated.

what do you mean by links should i put some links in here what link should i put ?
Well I'm just asking/seeking for someone's thought about indoor tanning because i need to tan myself to look better you know.

He's saying it's a good thing you didn't put links here. If you had, this thread would have been deleted and you would have been banned, because your post seemed like a spam post promoting tanning service.

As for looking better, just read the posts above, especially RyumaruBorike's. We're probably more concerned with health outcomes than looking good, so we might not be a good forum to ask.

ow is that so thanks for concern it well appreciated :) im not against in anyones thought im an open minded person so its no biggie :) i'm just wondering in things :)

Yeah if your goal is looking better indoor is the way to go as I said above Tami. It just might not be the healthiest option.

As someone who welds, tanning is not the way to go. UV rays are really bad for the skin especally your eyes. tanning booths are just like if you were doing close range arc welding at 360 degreeas around your body which is worse then tanning outside because you dont have media in the air such as dust to help filter the harmful rays.

tanning kind of sounds stupid to me.

Honestly, I don't get the point of tanning. It hurts your skin and does nothing but make you look like a Seaside Heights guido.

I'm not much of an expert on tanning. At one point in my life, I was working night shift and staying inside all day, so my skin was stark white (not assisted by the fact that I wear dark clothing). When I took another job that required me to be outside all day, my skin started burning up like no tomorrow. People were telling me that they weren't used to seeing me with sunburn.

It seems to me, however, that tanning booths are worse for your skin. I figure that, since the UV rays are technically closer to you, they're more dangerous. There are a few people I know that go to tanning booths; their skin complexion looks unnatural. There's one girl I know who goes to tanning booths. When we first met, I thought that she was in her mid thirties; she's actually 21.