Talk:Sun tanning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Post-mortem tanning

Do only dead or alive cells tan, or both? - Omegatron 19:35, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently from the article, cells don't become tanned, melanocytes produce the pigment which makes skin look tan. Some produce the pigment only in response to the radiation, some don't need it to produce pigment. But I would suspect that the cells need to be alive to produce pigment.

I wonder how long the pigment remains before it fades - does it have a half life? I suppose that a dead black person would eventually fade and look albino, but would that happen before or after the skin decomposes? I'd guess that melatonocytes remain active for some time after general biologically recognized death, and if so, then a dead white person exposed to the sun might still tan for some time. Castlan 06:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh. I meant the dead skin cell layer on alive people, versus the deeper layers of alive cells. - Omegatron 14:07, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
"Melanocytes are cells located in the bottom layer of the skin's epidermis." Castlan 9 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

[edit] Dangers of tanning

Is sunlight just as harmfull to your skin as artificial UV rays from a sun tanning bed?

It's slightly different. Sunlight at midday has more UV-B; UV-B causes cancer, but also triggers production of vitamin-D and melanin. UV-A is also present, but UV-A doesn't cause cancer as much, but messes up collagen in the skin far more, and doesn't stimulate melanin production so much; but if you have already built up a tan, UV-A triggers release of melanin so the tan appears, but causes less DNA damage. Most suntan lamps produce more UV-A than sunlight and less UV-B; so they probably age the skin more quickly, since that is a lot more to do with collagen damage, but cause less cases of cancer and they don't give such a good tan.WolfKeeper 23:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It is actually UVA which has been linked to melanoma, and both UVA and UVB invoke the tanning response in skin. When judging the relative dangers of UV tanning beds vs. tanning in the sun, keep in mind that UV rays cause cancer whether they are produced by the sun or by a lamp. Tanning beds vary widely. Some have UVA-only lamps; others have a mix of UVA and UVB. In the 1970s, tanning beds were UVB only. You can ask your local tanning salon which type of lamp (bulb) they use, but less than one percent will be able to give you an answer. Without equipment testing, their answer will be meaningless anyway, because, as the lamps age, their output changes significantly. Tanning salons that maintain their equipment properly (change the lamps when they are supposed to) are extremely rare. UVA-only tanning bed lamps allow a far larger dose of UVA than you can get from the sun, for UVB is the ray that burns the skin, naturally limiting exposure. UVA-only tanning beds were manufactured precisely for that reason, to allow longer tanning sessions without burning. How much UVA you might receive from any particular tanning bed is impossible to determine without equipment testing, but most dermatologists believe that UVA-only tanning beds are contributing to the increase in melanoma.--Miko4444 00:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am curious whether or not it is actually safer to use a sun tanning bed rather than getting a tan from a natural source.

Probably safer, but the tan isn't quite as good, and the skin aging is probably worse. But it will depend on the tanning bed.WolfKeeper 23:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there a threshold of UV exposure, such as staying out longer than X hours in the sun? Or something along those lines?

The state of the art isn't likely near where one could claim that Radiation from a UV tube is healthier than Solar light at sea level, but a responsible Tan Salon should at least be able to handle the necessary precaution in order to avoid excessive exposure. The Sun's timer is preset a little too long for most non-third world populations to rely on. The Sun would probably be healthier, if you dilligently kept track of your levels of exposure, and took into account cloud cover and other atmospheric fluxuations. Other than just natural Sunlight, I could rationalize tanning bed use to set base in preparation for a holiday spent closer to the equator.

There would be no hard and fast thresholds. Basically, the minimum amount possible to get enough natural Vitamin D production and heal certain skin conditions is what I would recommend, because every moment the UV rays penetrate your skin is another bit of subdermal tissue degradation, and most of that stuff, like collagen, doesn't really regenerate much. Now if it raises your mood and increases your endorphines, then it's definitely worth it - but take it slowly, and let your natural defenses enough time to compensate (pigment). And as you are almost definitely going to get more Sunlight than you bargained for, use that Sunscreen and non-animal based moisturizer. Unless you are a corpse, then try a formaldehyde cocktail. Castlan 06:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ability to tan

I came to this article hoping it would have some information on people's ability to tan; I have noticed some light-skinned people that tan fine, whereas others only turn red and get sunburn if they're in the sun too long.

Melanocytes are present in different concentrations in different people, and have different levels of activity. Even in the same individual, different concentrations and activities can be observed. Swarthy people have melanocytes that don't need UV exposure to produce melatonin, your light-skinned people that tan fine have significant melanocytes that are inactive, your others don't have significant amounts of melanocytes. I believe Michael Jackson has a skin condition that negatively affects these cells, and that freckles are just clusters of melanocytes. Note that once your skin is exposed enough to burn, it still takes some time (an hour or so?) to turn red. So even after you have covered up, a sunburn may still manifest. Castlan 9 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

The information above is incorrect. Except for individuals suffering from Vitiligo, everyone has roughly the same number of melanocytes per square centimeter of skin. Individual differences occur because there is more than one type of melanocyte. Fair-skinned people have melanocytes that produce a type of melanin called pheomelanin, which is red-yellow in hue instead of brown. Red-yellow melanin does not create a tanned appearance, and it does not absorb UV radiation as effectively as the brown type of melanin, eumelanin, which is why fair-skinned people burn instead of tan. What type of melanocytes you have, and the type of melanin they produce, is genetic in origin, just like hair and eye color. The degree to which you tan will depend on which type of melanocyte predominates. It is likely that people who tan slowly, and not very dark (usually described as skin type II in the typical breakdown), have both types of melanocytes, but I can't find a source for this. --Miko4444 02:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Do other animals besides humans tan? I've never heard of such a thing, but I don't see why not, really. Especially relatively hairless animals like elephants.

[edit] Blatant advertising for fake tan product removed.

Hope nobody objects.

[edit] Effects of Sunscreen on tanning

Does the application of Sunscreen slow the process of tanning?

I've always wondered this, and no one ever can give me a straight answer. If you're tanning to get tan, and the tan comes from exposure to UV and the sunscreen blocks at least some of the UV, then I would assume the answer to be yes. However I've gotten some strange answers. Ranging from "well it's UVA that does the tanning and UVB that causes cancer, and that's the one sunscreen blocks, so no it wont slow it and it's beneficial" (which I believe is incorrect), to lots of other inventive guess-answers. But no one seems to know.

But if you're tanning to get tan, I wonder which would be worse... tanning with sunscreen, and taking longer to tan therefore more exposures... or tanning without it and therefore tanning quicker and needing shorter (albeit higher intensity) exposures. Or does it even matter? I mean maybe in order to get tan you have to get a certain amount of radiation for a certain amount of tan... in which case you'd need to be exposed to the same amount of UV either way you look at it? But maybe it's the way in which you get that exposure (intensity, duration, etc) that makes a diff?? I have no idea. But I really wish someone would thuroughly explain this in the article and back it up with good sources. - Anon user, 1/30/2006

Of course sunscreen slows tanning! Sunscreen has a Sun Protection Factor- normally between 5 and 30 or more. This is the amount that the sunscreen reduces the UV-B radiation by. To a fair degree that determines how quickly you build up a tan. But there's also UV-A radiation, sunscreens vary as to how much they block this, you can tell from the * (star) ratings. 4 stars mean that that sunscreen has a UV-A SPF that is the same as the UV-B rating; 2 stars are half etc. etc. It's a combination of the total UV-A and UV-B dose that determines how quickly you tan.WolfKeeper 06:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Article Contradicts Itself

"However, having a tan is visible proof that your skin is being damaged and this could have a long term effect on your health, e.g: skin cancer (which is now an epidemic in the United States), or signs of ageing such as early wrinkling, brown age spots, blotchiness or sagging, older skin which looks older than it actually is."

Asserting that tanning is unhealthy.

"Getting good sun exposure and a tan is, regardless of fashion, often beneficial and healthy to a person as long as it is done in a gradual and safe fashion with the use of protective sunscreen and monitored exposure."

Asserting that tanning is healthy.

These points seem to contradict each other. Lantoka 11:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


In response:

Actually, it really doesn't contradict itself. It says that it may be healthy as long as it is done in a gradual and safe fashion, with protective sunscreen. The first statement, where it says it is unhealthy, is what happens when one is overexposed, has unmonitored exposure, and does not use sunscreen.

69.86.137.28 02:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Angelo

There is no scientific support for the idea that suntanning is healthy, other than as a healthy individual's response to skin damage from overexposure to UV. I have re-written this article. It could still use more information about the relative tanning characteristics of different skin types and shades, for starters. Wyss 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Moslem women in Australia (generally noted for high levels of skin cancer) are now getting Ricketts due to lack of exposure to sunlight. There is a SMALL need for exposure to the sun. But there is no need to be exposed to the sun to the point of getting a tan. A tan is a defense mechanism against over-exposure.Garrie 05:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A contradiction remains in the article. It suggests that moderate sun exposure is beneficial, but what "moderate" means is not defined. If it was defined, the contradiction would be eliminated. Unfortunately, there are many conflicting studies, and few take into account all of the variables, such as sunscreen use and diet. The consensus, however, seems to be that no one needs to seek out any additional sun exposure. The average person gets enough daily exposure during activities such as going to work, school, and the supermarket.--Miko4444 03:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

top one from sunbed

A study by a Dr. Anthony Liguori and others, published in the July 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Part 1, suggests that the use of sunbeds may be addictive. The UV rays emitted by the beds stimulate the production of endorphins, resulting in a natural "high".

second one from suntan

A study by Dr. Anthony Liguori and others, published in the July 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Part 1, suggests that indoor sun tanning may be addictive. Ultraviolet light stimulates the production of endorphins (through the production of Vitamin D), resulting in a natural sensation of well-being.

Trying to find the source of this, wondering if someone might know where or how to find this. it seems like it was taken as a quote but then changed, and I am not sure who has changed it, and which one it is... thank you Shane198three

[edit] Some serious questions this article does not address

One thing I've always been a little perplexed by is this: if you're skin tans in response to exposure to UV radiation, and you're told to wear sunscreen/sunblock (which blocks or screens such radiation) then isn't this kind of a catch 22?? Does wearing Sun Screen cause a person to take longer exposure time or more levels of UV in order to tan since the tan is linked to amount of exposure (more UV = more tan) and since sun block actually limits this. Thus if you're sunning yourself in order to Tan isnt it counter productive to use sun block or sun screen??

Secondly there is no mention in this article about the effect of getting enough betacaratine on your body's abillity to tan. Also excersize promotes rapider tanner. There are also tan extenders that claim to help extend a person's tan, and personally I seem to find that using moisturizers help the tan keep longer. This article also does not make any mention of tanning techniques (such as the need to build up a base and then to have maintenence tanning), nor does it mention what is now widely accepted as scientific fact: that tanning can be mildly addictive (related to release of endorphines as well as behavorioral psychology).

There's also a difference, I believe, between sunblock, sunscreen, and suntan lotion. Sunblock = deflects radiation away from skin. Sunscreen = absorbs the radiation. Suntan lotion = little or no UV protection, with moisturizers and other components to promote tanning, reduce peeling, replace moisture and nutrients lost from sun exposure etc. This should be noted. - Anon User, 1/30/06

[edit] Images

What's with all the reverts? Anyone up for some discussion on it? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Using one of Sven's images is ok with me. More than that will ultimately distract some readers. Moreover, too many distracting photos in a short article like this gives undue weight to the naked breasts and bottoms they show and some may consider that disruptive, which is a blockable vio. Another editor has already reverted them altogether. Wyss 04:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that one or two images is enough for this article. WP:NOT censored, and they're all roughly equivalent in terms of licensing, so it's pretty much which one editors want more. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the tits picture. However, enough people have a problem with it to make me not want it there, as you can have pictures illustrating tanning without showing bare boobs, however silly the uproar over that is. It's not inappropriate in the slightest, but it is controversial, and less controversial alternatives exist. That's my opinion. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The Romania pic should be re-added, as she has a very dark tan and that would suit this article well. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've re-added the very dark, horiz. tan pic as per above. Wyss 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think more than 2 pictures of girls suntanning is gratuitous. In fact, it might be better if we have one picture of a girl and one picture of a guy. Also, the picture with the nudity should probably be placed lower in the article than the non-nude picture as this is often the custom with controversial images in articles. How about we switch the positions of the two current pictures in the interest of being less provocative? Kaldari 19:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Kaldari, good solution, though other contributors will, eventually, without a doubt object to the topless pic and I think s/he will have a point if other good pics are available with a complete bikini or bathing suit. Andries 20:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, although this is only my opinion, I like the dramatic nature of the opening photo and since there is only one from the series included in the article, it's much less open to criticism for being gratuitous or disruptive. Wyss 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I share your opinion, but from experience with similar issues, I can assure you that others will not. If you want the picture to have the best chances of surviving for the long term, you'll want to minimize the shock value. Ways of doing this include keeping the picture at a reasonable size (the current size of 400px seems excessive), and moving the picture lower in the article. Just my 2 cents. Kaldari 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your 2 cents is likely a shilling but if you're ok with it for now, I say let's leave it until someone else stumbles across it and has something to say. Wyss 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with Image:Sunbathe breasts.jpg. I mean it's only a pair of tits for fuck sake, half the world has 'em. Gerard Foley 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say that it suprises me to see these two images on an article about tanning. I agree there should be 1 male 1 female. Neither image in itself is offensive but the topless one could just as easy be a small bikini.Garrie 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The nudity borders on not safe for work, and seems unnecesary.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Douglasdanger (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not safe for work. Powers 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm by no means a prude, but my eyebrows shot upward on seeing the (half) nude photo, and then another. Come on, it's completely gratuitous. It has really nothing to add to the article. It's sort of like in court, certain evidence is withheld because it would add little if any value but would be too inflammatory. You would get the same informational value just by stating that people sunbathe in the nude, w/o the picture & without bothering quite a few people, especially those who really don't want their children to see this stuff. Plus, no warning on the top of the page. Can we vote or something? Do you really see yourself opening what should be a completely innocuous article (we're not talking about the adult porn industry here!) at work w/o people raising questions?--Knyazhna 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Wikipedia is not necessarily safe for work. If it's a concern, you can turn off the display of images in your browser. These are not rules I've made up; they are long-established conventions on Wikipedia. If you have better images than the ones we show -- free ones, ideally -- by all means, put them up. But illustrating the different ways that people sunbathe is hardly unecncylcopedic in an article on sunbathing! It is of immense value to show the many ways people sunbathe. Powers T 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey in pic caption

The caption on the first picture says that many girls said ... in a survey. It would be a good thing to say something more about the survey - giving an idea of what group of tennage girls think this. JPD (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why tanning?

There is very little information as to why tanning is so popular. So some people feel healthier (How does being darker make you healthy?) and some like the appearance of being athletic (but with tanning parlors on every corner, does anybody use a tan as evdence of athleticism?). I suspect that for the vast majority it is a social issue. A fashion trend.

Some people take tanning too far. I've seen many people with tans much too dark to be natural. Not attractive at all. PrometheusX303 18:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The act of being darker isn't necessary healthy or not healthy, but it proves that your body is recieving large amounts of Vitamin D, which is vital for proper health. However excessive amounts of Vitamin D are lethal. Malamockq 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Most Canadians (I assume N Americans) meet their daily requirement of vitamin D through diet anyways(http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1119222300970&pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/CHNResourcePageTemplate&c=CHNResource). I agree that tanning is completely just a fashion trend. Any respectable dermatologist would tell you that, if anything, a tan is a sign of damaged skin and a prophecy of early wrinkling.199.126.246.247 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
While most people probably do get enough vitamin-D through sun exposure, a large minority don't (http://www.newstarget.com/003838.html) (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/28/vitamin.D.ap/). Lack of sunlight has been linked to many diseases e.g. Multiple Sclerosis, rickets, various forms of cancer. Tanning has long been used by body builders to make muscles look more defined, thats how it makes people look more athletic. One explanation for why it makes people feel healthier is because increased sunlight is correlated with better mood. Another is that(at least in southern california) we would associate paleness with fat midwestern tourists, so in a way being pale was as unhealthy looking as being fat.MonolithicNinja
Here's the thing. Yes, vitamin D is a health benefit of UV exposure. UV exposure. NOT sun tanning. Sun tanning is a darkening of the skin resulting from EXCESSIVE UV exposure. The problem with this article (and many in the media) is that legetimate benefits of vitamin D are listed as though they are the result of getting a tan. Its like listing the health benfits of moderate drinking as "benefits of drunkenness" and saying that since moderate drinking prevents [list of illnesses] "well maybe binge drinking IS good for you overall". Really though, you never need to drink to the point of drunkenness to achieve these benefits, and in the same way you don't need to expose yourself to the point of tanning to get vit D benefits. These benefits have nothing to do with a TAN and therefore i see no place for them in the SUNTAN article. The only real health benefits of a tan is looking good and feeling better about yourself, which i'm not saying aren't legitmate, and the only reason people 'suntan', by definition

[edit] Still Unanswered

If you want to tan and you're putting on sunblock, isn't that counter-productive??

There is still no answer to a continuing paradox in my mind: tanning comes from UV radiation stimulating melanocytes to produce melanin and sunblock/sunscreen blocks UV radiation; so therefore isn't using Sun screen/block going to increase the amount of time it takes you to tan? So then, if your goal is to get a tan, isn't it illogical to use sunscreen in a tanning bed or when sun bathing?

One other question that needs addressing is which produces a better tan: long exposure to low levels of UV rays, or short exposure to high levels of UV rays? Also, which is more damaging to the skin: long, low-level exposure; or short, high-level exposure? This could greatly affect the logic of tanning strategies and safety. For example, if length of exposure is more damaging in comparison to intensity while short, intense exposure is beneficial to tanning, then it would actually make more sense to tan without sunscreen for shorter periods of time rather than to apply sunscreen and tan for a longer duration.

This is a bit like the issue of low fat foods... people eat low fat or "diet" products but then eat MORE OF THEM as a result of them being less filling and less satisfying.

These are questions I can't find the answers to anywhere.

Another big question is the effect of having a tan... if having a tan is a natural barrier against UV radiation, then shouldn't it be beneficial to reducing the effects of the harm from the sun? Therefore shouldn't tanning be beneficial, once it's developed? In such a case then it would make more sense to get tan and then maintain it indefinately, rather than let it fade and rebuild it (thus incurring more damage because in this case, if the facts were such, then GETTING the tan would be the key area where damage could be done to the skin, rather than maintaining it). So here control would be the main issue of concern; how the tan was achieved (slowly vs quickly). This, of course, depends on whether the majority of skin damage is being done during the initial phases of tanning as opposed to maintenence tanning (during which one is protected via melanin).

I'd really like to see these questions addressed and answered and added comprehensively into the article by someone who either really knows the answers or can find the information and properly cite it. Thelastemperor 20:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I shall do my best to answer your questions, which are many. :) First, suntan lotions and sun screens are two different products. The purpose of suntan lotions are to moisturize the skin. They may or may not contain sunscreen ingredients. Sunscreens block or absorb UV radiation, and inhibit tanning. Sunscreen ingredients can be divided into two categories: chemicals which absorb UV radiation, and physical blocks such as zinc oxide. Some chemical sunscreen ingredients absorb only UVA, some only UVB, but the physical blocks are effective for both. Second, while UVB will more quickly cause a sunburn, both UVA and UVB damage DNA and invoke the tanning response, and both cause sunburns. UVA just takes a little longer to do so. Third, suntan lotion is an immensely profitable gimmick. There is nothing in suntan lotion that can enhance or speed up tanning. Only UV exposure makes melanocytes produce melanin. Suntan lotions with moderate amounts of sunscreen are also a gimmick. Typically, they contain chemical sunscreens which absorb UVB, but do not absorb UVA. This allows longer exposure to the sun without burning. Fourth, beware of "tanning strategy" misinformation from the tanning industry, which is only concerned with increasing their profits. They encourage people to tan daily, even though your melanocytes takes up to seven days to fully respond to a single tanning session, and they encourage people to purchase and apply incredibly expensive products that are nothing more than scented moisturizers. Fifth, a tan offers very little protection, the equivalent of a SPF4 sunscreen, so getting a tan to protect your skin is counterproductive. The benefit of the tan is vastly outweighed by the damage your skin will incur getting it. Sixth, and most important, there is no such thing as getting a tan safely or optimally. All tans, no matter how slowly and carefully acquired, are a response to the DNA-damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation.--Miko4444 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sexist

i find it rather sexist that only women are shown sunbathing. how about a picture of a guy sunbathing? or a picture of a guy and a woman? Kingturtle 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I raised this issue a while back. It might be a good idea to try to find pictures of both genders, lest we imply that only women sunbathe. Kaldari 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This falls way into the realm of the obvious. Mentioning that both genders sunbathe and showing pictures to prove it seems to be redundant at best. - Nosforit --130.237.6.40 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i wanna sun tan now after reading this article!

"stimulates the production of Vitamin D, which promotes lower rates of disease, and ironically lower rates of skin and other types of cancer"

cool, i did not know that...so does that mean tanning isn't bad for you? (Oahc)

no. it increases damage to dna and hence cancer, but also raises antioxidants that help fight cancer. the good stuff probably doesn't increase past a fairly small exposure, whereas the bad stuff increases with your exposure. patrickw 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
also, most people can probably get their daily requirement of Vit D from diet anyways (it is added to milk, etc.)199.126.246.247 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Most people can? Maybe, if they drink a quart of milk each day and regularily eat fish. Peoplesunionpro 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nude Woman

I am not trying to censor anything on wikipedia, I am a strong advocate of free speech and am against censorship, But I think that showing a picture of tan lines would be much more informative than showing a topless woman tanning. Mwhorn 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Where are the tan lines. patrickw 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You object to the topless pic? Well, it does seem gratuitous. But what about the pick of the guy with the hairy arse/monkey butt? I mean dang. Looks to me like someone's due for an ass wax. deeceevoice 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No safe tan

I think this article needs to emphasize the fact there is no such thing as a "safe" tan.

In YOUR Opinion:
I have not been satisfied that this is a true statement. It is my opinion after working in the industry for 15 years that moderate tanning without sunburn is beneficial to health. Homo Sapiens have been exposed to sunlight for 200,000 years and developed quite nicely as a race. Why now is it all of a sudden considered a bad thing? People also need to know that dermatologists make incredibly large sums of money from selling sunblock lotions. Also, sunscreen often contains the following chemicals of which many are quite toxic:
   * p-Aminobenzoic acid (PABA) up to 15 %.
   * Avobenzone up to 3%.
   * Cinoxate up to 3%.
   * Dioxybenzone up to 3%.
   * Homosalate up to 15%.
   * Menthyl anthranilate up to 5%.
   * Octocrylene up to 10%.
   * Octyl methoxycinnamate (Octinoxate) up to 7.5%.
   * Octyl salicylate up to 5%.
   * Oxybenzone up to 6%.
   * Padimate O up to 8%.
   * Phenylbenzimidazole sulfonic acid (Ensulizole) up to 4%.
   * Sulisobenzone up to 10%.
   * Titanium dioxide up to 25%.
   * Trolamine salicylate up to 12 %.
   * Zinc oxide up to 25%.
I certainly don't want these chemicals on my skin. Please think this through properly.--Vox Teardrop 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Now I realise this is an article not a health advisory, but from the way it currently reads it would seem that only tanning to the point of burning is risking cancer, when this is not true. To achieveany tan, even a nice looking golden one, is risking skin cancer. I think we really need to emphasize this fact, because alot of people refering to this article probably still believe tanning is okay if you don't burn (i used to)

Intro. A line should be added to the intro saying something along the lines of "Although today a tan is culturally assoaciated with health and beauty, it has been identified as the leading cause of skin cancer and most health experts advise against spending time in sunlight to achieve a tanned look", except less weasel word-y with actual citation to the WHO and american dermatology assoaciation or something. Certainly something should be added. An intro to this article without mention of skin cancer is like an intro to smoking without mention of lung cancer.
"Risks" Section. The sentence "Sunburns are a symptom of skin damage and are associated with skin cancer" implies that tanning without getting sunburnt (on a bed or outside) is okay. We need to emphasize that any tan is a risk. A citation of the link to tanning and wrinkling should also be added. Also, as a general comment on writing style, this section reads like a list, not an article. It jumps suddenly to talking about "addictiveness" with no transition and has no intro or conclusion.
"Benefits" Section. Call me on "NPOV" if you want, but I think that any apparent "benefit" of deliberate tanning is just bullshit used by tanning companies to make money, or myths spread by igonorant tanners. As i have pointed out most people get enough vitamin D already, and if they don't, there are better ways to get it, like a 20 minute walk through a park (not "tanning" really) or supplements. Sure we need some sun, but most people get enough in day to day activities, not needing to devote time under the tanning lamp or in the yard shirtless. Tanning for "health benefits" is the biggest load ever; its like saying you get drunk every weekend for the "health benefits" you've read about beer (in moderation). ...Also, the same comments on style from the previous bullet apply here too.
"Prevention" Section. Again, it implies tanning without burning is "safe". Only one sentence briefly mentions the idea of avoiding the sun as much as possible, though I believe most national health organisations would back this up. It makes it seem like the American Academy of Dermatology's recommendation are some radical new speculation, while in the last section, an entire paragraph is devoted to some Dr Grant's research paper. Not exactly balenced. Also the "NOTE:" at the end is completely unverified and weasely, not citing a single of hte "many experts" against the use of sunblock.

K there's my two cents, cause i'm bored. Do what you want, hardcore wikipedians199.126.246.247 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is your source that "most people get enough vitamin D already"? All this article says is that sun tanning occurs with UV exposure. And that sun burns are what occur with EXCESS UV exposure. The article doesn't say that "lying in the sun for 20 minutes is not tanning". If you don't think there is any benefit, you should look over the source that simply states that more people die from lack of sun exposure, rather than from excess exposure. Peoplesunionpro 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is part of the balance issue with the article, but working on cites to make the article more neutral, myself. There is evidence that people who get almost no UV exposure have a higher incidence of skin cancer than those who get a modest to moderate amount, but again, I am working on data to provide adequate cites before I make any changes, since this issue gets political and is so emotionally charged. Of course there are risks, but as you point out, they are associated with overexposure, particularly as a child. I don't want to see the article be a soapbox for anyone, but instead provide real information. Pharmboy 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to Dr's

There are numerous references to doctors in the article; most are of the form "Dr John Doe"; for greater clarity and professionalism it would seem better to use the form "John Doe, Ph.D.", "John Doe, M.D.", "John Doe, D.D.", etc.

Better yet, unless it's someone of note (i.e. notable enough to have their own page here), they probably don't warrant a mention at all. Anyone who cares about who did the research can follow the reference link, but for your average person this information is entirely irrelevant. --203.206.183.160 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide Rates

"Sunshine also has positive effects on psychological mood and in prevention of suicude, as suicide rates increase in winter." this statement is actually not true, it's a myth and summer has higher average suicide rates. From the suicide article "People commit suicide more often during spring and summer. The idea that suicide is more common during the winter holidays (including Christmas in the northern hemisphere) is actually a myth.[14]" I ask that this be removed. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.160.169 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Powers 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More topless hotties

That's what wikipedia needs.

hmm, I think I'll go register wikiporn.com

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.166.106.2 (talk • contribs) .


[edit] What is the point?

Can someone tell me the point of having multiple nude/semi-nude sun tanners? It would work just as well to keep just one to explain the popularity of nude tanning and have the other with at least some shorts on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.47.34.73 (talk • contribs) .

Why not? Pictures are good. We have one woman sunbathing with normal swim attire, one woman sunbathing topless, one man sunbathing nude, and one man taking shelter from the sun. I believe that covers the spectrum pretty well, don't you? Powers 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It just seems it would be... less offensive to some if a single nude tanner were pictured followed by a discussion on nude tanning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.47.34.73 (talk • contribs) .
We don't intentionally offend anyone, but neither do we take special measures not to offend anyone. It's a quagmire; if you do one thing to make sure someone isn't offended, then there's little reason not to do another thing to make sure someone is offended, and pretty soon we're spending all of our time trying to figure out who might be offended by what, instead of writing an encyclopedia. As I mentioned, we have only one picture of a nude tanner. The second picture is of a topless woman, which is not, in fact, nude suntanning in the sense Europeans would think of it; it is very common in many places in the world. Powers 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Tanning without clothes is common and popular because it reduces tan lines and because it is more comfortable. I wish the nude tanning shots did not cut people off at the head. The other image is from a weird angle below the feet. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UVA and UVB

One gets the impression from reading this article that UVA and UVB are completely distinct from each other, when in fact they're nothing more than arbitrary subsets of a continuous spectrum. Surely this binary description of UV radiation breaks down at some point... if anyone knows of an example in this context, the whole thing might deserve a brief mention. For the moment, I've just replaced the statement "The two frequencies of light which cause tanning are UVA and UVB"... --203.206.183.160 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, UVA and UVB are terms created by scientists to group together certain parts of the spectrum. For example, a milliwatt of 280nm (UVB) behaves quite differently to a milliwatt of 314nm (also UVB). Don't even get me started on UVC. --Vox Teardrop 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh!

Aaaargh! that picture of the monkey ass guy is absolutely, positively and extremely nasty. I do not object in any way to the nudity. Rather, I am objecting to the extremely nasty look of that picture. I feel soiled for having seen it. It seems there has been discussion as to what pictures to use, so I will not remove it, but I will ask the people who have been discussing the pictures to reconsider. That picture is NASTY! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.38.5.162 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah i think we get the point with the womans breast tan lines but is the second nude pic really nessesary?Barry White 07:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Suntanning in the nude is very common. We ought to have a picture of it, and this is the only one presented so far. Powers T 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constantly reverting pages - Do we really NEED the nudes?

The two nude images, one of a man and one of a woman, are constantly being edited out by A/Cs. I revert when I see it, but I have to ask: Are these even necessary? I understand that nude sun tanning is common, but I am not sure what the images add to the article since everyone pretty much knows what a nude person looks like. I don't have any problems with nudity, but I respect that others might, and unless the images are significantly adding to the content of the message, maybe we need to consider not having them on the page. In other words, unless the images are adding unique information or context, perhaps they are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. If they *ARE* adding an extra dimension in explaining nude suntanning in some way I don't understand, then please explain.

Saying "well, people should just get over it" isn't acceptable, as this is not why we put anything on Wikipedia. That isn't a valid reason to include something that obviously others see at controversial, no matter how silly you and I think that is. Tell me, are the pictures REALLY adding value to the article, or are they purely optional? I am the only one who thinks the pictures are more hassle than they are worth because they are not really adding anything to the article? Again, if they added to the article, I would defend them to last edit, but I just don't see how they are helping define "sun tanning" any more than a description that "some people tan nude" does. Pharmboy 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as a substantial amount of sun tanning is done nude, there is no reason to exclude images of sun tanning just because some find it controversial. Jesus is controversial, as well rock and roll. Clothes, sunglasses and sunscreen are accessories to sun tanning.
That said, the nude sun tanning images on this page are not any thing to be happy about. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Powers T 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The real question is: Are they substantially adding context to the article or providing information where words alone would not be sufficient? That is the sole issue. Pharmboy 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If its a good image demonstrating sunbathing, then it should be considered for this page, clothes or no clothes, sunscreen or no sunscreen, umbrella or no umbrella, sunglasses or no sunglasses, beach towel or no beach towel, et cetera. Right now I would like to see a better replacement for the naked male sunbathing image. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
And why is the image of the man sunbathing nude "weak"? I put it back because we don't have anything better yet. Powers T 11:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have never removed any of the nude images (check history, I have even reverted them back until we can reach concensus here). I question the NEED for the photo. Again, no one has answered the question: Does this add to the article? Does it offer some context that words alone can not describe? I personally find the image distasteful, not because the person is nude, but the actual image itself. It adds nothing to the article except controversy. "Why not" is not justification for inclusion of an image. "Until we find something better" doesn't answer the questions "is it necessary or beneficial" either. The new female nude is more tasteful than the old, and should be sufficient if you feel you MUST show what a nude sunbather looks like. Pharmboy 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to myself, as an additional question to Dandelion, not to you, Pharmboy. =) I disagree with you, however, that the sole issue should be whether the images are providing information that cannot be conveyed by words. That may be a good criterion to use when evaluating fair use images, but for free images I disagree that we ought to be so strict. I also did not use "Why not" as a justification for the inclusion of the images; it was a question to Dandelion, as in "Why do you feel that 'the nude sun tanning images on this page are not any thing to be happy about'?" Powers T 19:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The nude woman sunbathing that I linked to I believe is better than the image showing a woman cropped in an impersonal and objectifying way (head and lower part of body out of frame). The image of the man sunbathing on this page is just lame. That is my opinion. It just is not a strong image from a composition stantpoint. Maybe it means a lot to the person who took it, but I challenge anybody to claim that it is a solid image worth of being on wikipedia. Maybe if we keep it here people will be better motivated to suggest or come up with a better image. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100%. A single nude is more than enough, but any nude should be tasteful, not offensive. That is one reason the two keep getting deleted, they look "obviously" out of place. The new nude image is fine and should be enough to demonstrate "nude suntanning" without any other images. I still say delete the male nude because the angle looks more pornographic than informative, and yes, lame. Pharmboy 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed nude male

I thought we had already covered this that the photo of the male nude was not needed and potentially in poor taste. Another nude of a woman was also removed for being objectifying. Many people don't see a nude photo as being necessary to begin with, but if others feel it is necessary, it should more tasteful, and one is enough to convey the message. Unnecessary nudes of questionable taste (ie: money shots...) take away from the article. We have one, it appears that the concensous agrees it is enough. Pharmboy 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see much of a consensus. I see Dandelion and Pharmboy agreeing that the male nude picture is unnecessary. Two people does not a consensus make. Regardless, other people have also commented on the gender imbalance of the picture selection; we have two clear pictures of women sunbathing and one picture of a man under and umbrella and viewed from behind. As it is, the picture selection strongly implies that only women lay out in the sun to tan. That's misleading. Powers T 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Maintaining equal images of males and females in articles is not any goal I am aware of. The concensus is not misleading, it is just based on more than the Talk page, it is based on the History of the article. The image of the male has been removed without explanation many times without it being vandelism. The old female image was FINALLY replaced with the current image, (the old was objectifying). Same with the male image. Nudes don't bother me. Nude images that are in questionable taste in an article for a field that I have written extensively for 14 years, DO bother me and many others. The image needs to be replaced with a less objectionable male nude image if one is going to be used. Pharmboy 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what's objectionable about it. It's here, we have it, and we don't have a replacement. We should use it. Powers T 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
But others DO, which is why it has a long history of being removed. It adds nothing but poor taste. Pharmboy 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
People object to the image on Human feces, too, but that doesn't mean it should be removed. I still don't see what's objectionable about the image. It's the best image we have of a male sunbather; until there's a better image available, why not use it? Powers T 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/n/Talk%7ESun_tanning_3724.html"