May 24th, 2006

Filed under:
Mixed Bag, Science
3 Comments »

Tanning, the New Forbidden Fruit

Just read a piece in Slate magazine entitled Master Sunshine (you can also listen to it). It discusses how, after smoking and sugary drinks, tanning salons are the new target of the health police:

About 30 million Americans use tanning salons. At least one of every four teenage girls, and nearly one of every two girls aged 18 or 19, has tanned indoors at least three times. Why? According to this month’s Archives of Dermatology, “[ultraviolet] radiation, a classified carcinogen, is commonly and specifically marketed to adolescents through high school newspaper advertising” by salons.

The writer draws some interesting conclusions on tanning salons and regulation.

I recently had a conversation about how I’m baffled as to why people tan. Not only can it be hazardous to your health, but I look around, and most of the Caucasian top models and actresses have alabaster skin. Isn’t the idea that people want to emulate popular celebrities? And unlike tobacco and food, it doesn’t necessarily have highly addictive qualities (though one small study disagrees).
Then somebody congratulated me on my naivety, and explained that a tan is a very effective means of covering blemishes and cellulite. That makes sense.

The same person then quoted her beautician, who doesn’t take clients who tan regularly. The beautician (esthetician? salonist?) apparently pointed out that “we can treat acne, but there’s not much we can do for wrinkles”.

Comments: 3 Responses so far

Meg
May 24th, 2006
8:22 am

I must admit being drawn in by the golden appeal. I genuinely look more alive with a bit of sun — like I haven’t been sealed in a tupperware container for months on end. I also know it’s horrendous for me. But honestly — when you have a tan, the first thing people say is, “You look so healthy!”

I think that comes from the idea that paler people can’t possibly be as physically active as tanned people, since they’ve obviously been cooped up inside. Which is silly, given sunscreen. But the stigma remains…

[Reply]

John Bollwitt
May 24th, 2006
11:35 am

The other side of the issue is that exposure to sunlight aids in the brain’s ability to raise serotonin levels. Serotonin is that chemical in your brain that essentially makes you happy. Clinical depression is when you have low levels of serotonin, and the drugs you take for it simply help to boost that chemical imbalance.

Vitamin D is also something sunlight can naturally aid in the production of, and this is tied into that natural reaction that leads to higher serotonin levels in your brain. Also, there is ongoing research that speculates on higher levels of vitamin D in your body can help to prevent various health problems such as diabetes or liver disease. I recall my brother telling me of a study that it can also help prevent certain, internal forms of cancer, as strange as that might sound.

Of course, everything in moderation. I mean, just because something is good for you doesn’t mean that you should do as much of it as you can. I know that when I’m feeling stressed out and/or down, laying in the sun for a bit relaxes me greatly. On top of that, I get dark just walking down the street, so I’ve gotta do something to get rid of this farmer tan on my arms.

[Reply]

Darren McLaughlin
May 25th, 2006
2:18 am

It’s the warmth. For people living in cold climates, a sort of depression can set it.

People need the “Sun” to feel better. That said, when your skin looks leather and your have tumors, you know it’s getting to be a bit much. Personally, I’d never pay to tan, but I’d never have cosmetic surgery either.

[Reply]

Add a comment