Apr 3, 2012 at 13:39:11
“Interesting report but with a very unfair and illogical blame on tanning beds.
It is hard to see that use of tanning beds can be the cause of an increase of melanoma cases when the fact is that the number of indoor tanners drastically has decreased during the last 10 years thanks to the iintensive anti-tanning propaganda.
Why not instead link the increase in melanoma to an increase (to the level of abuse) of sun-protection cosmetics? Then at least there will be a coincidence.
Also it is hard to understand why the report has to "speculate that the use of indoor tanning beds is a key culprit in the rising cancer rate in young women". Why didn't they just ask the patients in the research about their tanning-habits (indoors as well as outdoors). Or maybe they did but refrained from presenting the result since it didn't support their "speculation"?
Furthermore I would like to ask if the authors of the report really read the full research reports about increased risk for skin-cancer from tanning beds? If so, they should have noticed that they actually don't show any increased risk from regular, non-burning use of indoor tanning.
Could it be so that the commercial reasons for this research are more important than the concern for public health?
Apr 18, 2012 at 16:07:12
“To maintain a high level of vitamin D is probably the single most beneficial thing you can do for your overall health.
Vitamin D is created when exposing your skin to UVB-light. This is the by far best and the only natural way to increase your vitamin D level.
To exercise outdoors is a good advice, but remember that UVB can reach your skin only when the sun is higher than 50 degrees above the horizon.
This mean that the right time for being outdoors is around noon, however, for several months of the year, the sun never manage to climb high enough.
A tanning beds is then a good alternative to keep your vitamin D level high.
Don't let the anti-tanning propaganda scare you. Find out here why indoor tanning has become a target for the sun-scare lobby ... http://www.tannersrights.com/why-indoor-tanning-has-become-a-target-for-the-sun-scare.html/”
tbone99 on Apr 18, 2012 at 22:06:37
“Also vitamin D is slowly absorbed so don't wash it off with soap”
SueZbell on Apr 18, 2012 at 19:18:05
“Much of the country does not have enough sun for much of the year for us to get the "D" we need-- suggest taking a Vitamin D3 pill--then go outdoors for exercise.”
“What about some touch of reality here? Do you really want to say that ALL UV-light is dangerous? Then I would like to make you aware of that without UV-light, and especially the UVB rays, hardly no life on earth would exist.
We have to learn to differ between enough and too much. All anti UV-propaganda use "too much" arguments and evidences. And with that approach, almost anything in this world could be made "carcinogenic". The latest study you refer to, from the Mayo Clinic, doesn't even have a reference to tanning beds in the report itself. Only in a comment from one of the authors in the press-release, spun to make it look like indoor tanning was to blame. The other fact is that nation-wide statistic shows that melanoma cases in the examined gender and age interval actually is shrinking, not growing. The county selected for the survey also happens to have 15 times more dermatologists per inhabitant than the US average. And, as we all know, the more police the higher crime-rate.
The dermatologists in USA is fighting for the control of a multi-billion dollar market for having indoor tanning confined to their clinics. And that is only one of their driving forces.
Have a look at this video. It will show what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_CrPZLbkE8”
“You just can't get a nice "fake" tan without "real" melanin in your skin. And melanin is created when you are exposed to UV(B) rays. There are no proof whatsoever that moderate and regular sun-tanning, be it outdoors or indoors, increases the risk for skin-cancer. Au contrare - it actually helps to prevent against skin-cancer (plus most other cancers) thanks to the vitamin D you are getting while tanning.
The campaign against tanning and tanning-beds is driven by commercial motives and is very counterproductive to improving common health.
Dec 27, 2011 at 12:28:12
“A fresh and healthy glow to your skin comes not only from the food that you eat (or what you shouldn't eat) but mainly from the amount of melanin in your skin. The only natural way to increase the melanin is by careful exposure to UV(B)-rays. For most of us at this time of the year, that means in a tanning bed.
"OH", I hear you gasping, "but tanning is so dangerous for the skin!". Not so! Only TOO MUCH tanning is bad (just like it is probably not a very good idea to eat too much strawberries or bananas). Moderate but regular tanning, supported by a healthy diet and the best skin-care, is actually the best way to get that really healthy glow. At least for the majority of us.
Just do not tan in order to be as dark as possible. Having that goal increases the risk of burning, which is absolutely not good. You can increase your melanin by tanning sessions lasting about half of the time it will take for you to burn. The vitamin D you will get as a bonus will also keep the flu away. And a dripping red nose is probably not something we associate with beauty (if it is not on Rudolf!).”
Jun 11, 2011 at 02:08:02
“Vitamin D can only be created in our bodies when we expose the skin to UVB-rays (from the sun or from a solarium). The best "proof" for that Vitamin D is not intended to take orally is to be found in mothers-milk. Or, is rather NOT found there. Because mothers-milk contains ALL nutrients a child need during his or her first year, EXCEPT Vitamin D.
Yes, you can increase your level of Vitamin D by taking supplements. I have tested that on myself, but that is not the natural way.
If you want to have the exact blueprint for how to keep your Vitamin D level high, see this post: http://thetanningguru.com/do-you-know-how-to-tan
In my opinion, the main function of tanning beds is to give us the possibility to get Vitamin D the way nature intended it (but with some help from modern technology) at any location, at any time and in any weather.”
onionboy on Jun 11, 2011 at 04:11:07
“"the main function of tanning beds is to give us the possibility to get Vitamin D the way nature intended"
Nature intended tanning beds? Nature clearly intended the sun.
Unless you happened to be very dark skinned and living in Wisconsin, you probably get enough sunlight to process Vitamin D. Nature evolved Northern Europeans to get pale so they could absorb more sunlight in a non-equatorial environment. Seeing as how Swedes have been doing fine for quite some time now, and are not in a bright and sunny environment, I'd say that most US states will do fine for most Americans and will certainly be fine for 99.9999% of caucasians.
If you want an example of caucasians getting lots of sun, see Australia, the land of white folks in the tropics. You don't see people free of disease. You see a high incidence of melanoma. Conversely, you don't see any increased incidence of cancers in people based on their living above the arctic circle (and thus without sunlight for months at a time) or among african-americans who live in overcast climates.”
Jun 11, 2011 at 01:56:56
“There are no evidence from any research that shows that moderate and regular use of tanning beds for the purpose of getting Vitamin D will cause skin-cancer.
The reports behind the recommendations from WHO are "made on order" to fullfill another purpose than take care of our health: http://www.tannersrights.com/arent-they-supposed-to-give-healthy-recommendations.html/
To ask Dermatologist about this is like to ask tobacco manufacturers if smoking causes lung-cancer.
If you make a living of insurance money paid for every suspected melanoma you can find on your patients bodies, like many dermatologists do, there is a high risk that you will become a little bit biased.”
Jun 10, 2011 at 15:20:55
“Tanning beds and Sun protection cosmetics - two "inventions" that concerns our health.
One is making us more healthy while the other is making us more susceptible to illnesses.
Can you guess which of the two inventions that does what?
No, it is not like you think and have been indoctrinated to believe.
In reality, the tanning bed is a device that can help our bodies to make Vitamin D in a natural way independent of location, time and weather. A high level of Vitamin D has been proved to be one of the best protections towards most kind of cancers and other common diseases.
Sun protection cosmetics, on the other hand, destroys the delicate balance between UV-light and human skin that has evolved during millions of years. By blocking UVB, SPF-cosmetic prevents the skin to produce Vitamin D, even in sunlight.
To compare tanning beds to tobacco is unfair, and an example of the cheap PR-tricks used by the "sun-scare" mafia.
The tanning bed is probably one of the most powerful and cost-efficient means to improve the overall health of the population. Tobacco does nothing good at all.
The referral to recommendations by WHO, makes the arguments presented like carved in stone. In reality, there are certainly no reliable evidence that tanning beds are dangerous if used correctly. And the statistic presented by WHO is labelled "scientific fraud" by many real experts on the subject.
“This is good, but even better would be to go after the manufacturers of sun-protection lotions that are behind 30 years of sun-scare campaign. They, and their paid supporters, have indoctrinated a full generation to an unprecedented usage of sun-protection lotions. And they continue to do it well knowing that those lotions contain dangerous chemicals that prevent our skin to produce the necessary Vitamin D from the best source - sunlight.
Get the full report from 30 years of Sun-Scare here: www.tannersrights.com”
flyn2hi on Nov 20, 2010 at 11:11:26
“What about manufacturers of tanning beds? That's an interest no one has targeted even though they (the beds) are known to dramatically increase the risk of skin cancer.”