What are your views on White women getting tans either by the sun and/or in salons? Personally, I don't like it. Firstly and most importantly, tans are not healthy. Secondly, White women should be white and not brown (Brown women should be brown).
Tanning
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
Tanning naturally is okay in moderation, but tanning at salon's is one of the worst things you could do to your body, I guess second would be breast implants. 
The right amount? I know tons of people who have managed to burn the shit out of themselves at a salon. Most places, you pay for the time, and they don't care how much time you buy...
Especially when you buy the 'unlimited' deal because you can save money. Something like stuffing yourself at the buffet...
Tanning naturally is okay in moderation, but tanning at salon's is one of the worst things you could do to your body, I guess second would be breast implants.
Agreed; everything in moderation. I enjoy relaxing in a lounger, soaking up the sun and a cold beverage as much as the next guy. Any way you slice it, Salon tanning is not good for your skin. Most experts will agree that any exposure to UV light is bad for your skin - whether is naturally from the sun or in a tanning bed. The tanning beds magnify your exposure to UV rays, and increase your health risks. The tanning bed industry is bombarding the general population with misinformation to preserve their own businesses.
Most media darlings, whether tv, movie, or adult actor/actresses have been using sunless tanning /spray on temporary bronzers for years. The end result looks great and it won't kill you.....
Your wrong,when it comes to adminstration of uv light it is the dosage that matters.example,if you spent an hour with that cool drink in your lounge chair ...thinking about your favorite sp,you would spend 10 minutes or so in a sunbed ,but the cumalitive exposure would be the same.The dosage is what matters.
For instance if ,tina white could get you off in 3 minutes ,it might take a less expeirieced sp 10 minutes...but you still shot your load.
You will also notice that most of the "experts" on sunlight are the sunscreen companies.Don't fall for that crap.Sunlight will save your life.
For instance if ,tina white could get you off in 3 minutes ,it might take a less expeirieced sp 10 minutes...but you still shot your load.
You will also notice that most of the "experts" on sunlight are the sunscreen companies.Don't fall for that crap.Sunlight will save your life.
They are going to shitty salons.A proffessional salon will not burn you.And quality beds don't require unlimited.Sorta like picking up streetwalkers.I know someone who has been in the biz for 17 yrs,and I once was looking at this as a business venture .So I have studied this extensivly.Even though I can't spell.
Love tans, everyone looks healthier with a tan.
Love tan lines too, highlights all the important areas.
Love tan lines too, highlights all the important areas.
I agree with Rockslinger, my preferrence is the white look on white women. I think tanning too much takes away from their looks.
Don't get me wrong i'm also partial to the latina olive skin but thats on latinas.
I won't attempt to touch the heath reasons.
GDL
Don't get me wrong i'm also partial to the latina olive skin but thats on latinas.
I won't attempt to touch the heath reasons.
GDL
I will give you guys and gals a hint as to why you think they are bad.Dermatologist loose 2-3 billion $$ anually in north america to tanning salons.They have lost 90% of their exzema and psorisis business to indoor tanning salons and they are pissed.
Big pharma sells 35 billion $ a year in sunscreen ,so the message is all sun ,in or out is bad.
We also live in a vitamin d deficient society.If big pharma did not have all the disease they have they would not be able to afford 1,000 sp's
.
So they lie thru their teeth to keep society sick and profits up.
Pziser was fined 2.6 billion last week for lying to the fda about one of their drugs.
Tanning beds were originally invented in Germany (land of many brothels) for people who were suffering from sunlight deficiency's.
I could go on ,but I am out of time.Gotta go.Got an appt with an sp.
Later.
Big pharma sells 35 billion $ a year in sunscreen ,so the message is all sun ,in or out is bad.
We also live in a vitamin d deficient society.If big pharma did not have all the disease they have they would not be able to afford 1,000 sp's
.So they lie thru their teeth to keep society sick and profits up.
Pziser was fined 2.6 billion last week for lying to the fda about one of their drugs.
Tanning beds were originally invented in Germany (land of many brothels) for people who were suffering from sunlight deficiency's.
I could go on ,but I am out of time.Gotta go.Got an appt with an sp.
Later.
Horse Hockey!
Do you run or own one of these Cancer producing spas?
Doctors in the USA want all tanning booths banned!
CBS News yesterday did a story on this saying women under 30 who regularly use tanning beds have ~75% chance increase in getting skin cancer in their life! You get a tan and the cancer comes later for free!....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/28/eveningnews/main5194604.shtml
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10814171
Wanna get some sun? Go out and do some exercise - maybe volleyball or swimming, soccer or even do what I (used) to do - work outdoors. Get a decent tan, even all over because you're moving around, without burning. Don't overdo it.
Laying in one spot on the beach? Laying in a silly suntan booth? Seems stupid to me.
As others have said, do it in moderation. Paying for it doesn't really make a lot of sense, and being 'proud' of how dark your tan is in the middle of February also seems a little off to me.
Then again, I'm just an old dude who doesn't know nothing...
Laying in one spot on the beach? Laying in a silly suntan booth? Seems stupid to me.
As others have said, do it in moderation. Paying for it doesn't really make a lot of sense, and being 'proud' of how dark your tan is in the middle of February also seems a little off to me.
Then again, I'm just an old dude who doesn't know nothing...
I don't disagree with you. Sure I'll take the UV rays to enjoy the sunshine. That's part of enjoying summer here in Ontario. But, I don't see the need to supplement my exposure to UV radiation in a tanning bed. Studies have argued that indoor tanning provides radiation far in excess of what is needed to get enough vitamin D and as a result, too much radiation exposure can actually remove Vitamin D from the body. Personally, I strive to stay healthy and achieve all of my vitamin requirements through a balanced diet, exercise (a budding cycyleguy in my own right) and vitamin packs from GNC.
If I want to get a pronounced tan, I go get sprayed with Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) at anyone of the salons in the GTA who have the product. DHA is a simple carbohydrate that reacts with the proteins in your skin which produces a brown “tan” which begins to form in about 2 to 3 hours. DHA has been approved for cosmetic use by the Canadian Health Ministry and it's considered nontoxic and noncarcinogenic. The tan continues to darken for approximately 8-12 hours. The results are great. The tan is absolutely water-resistant and diminishes only as the dead cells of the stratum corneum flake off (exfoliation). DHA is the closest you can get to a tan from the sun - without the associated risks.
I've spent time with Tina; she is indeed yummy!
I remember Quebec Premier Robert Bourrasa (check spelling) always sported a tan. He was born poor but married rich so could afford frequent trips to Florida. Died at age 63 from skin cancer.
I fail to understand why so many White women want to look brown
. White women should look white. Brown women should look brown and Black women should look black. Love diversity.
I fail to understand why so many White women want to look brown
. White women should look white. Brown women should look brown and Black women should look black. Love diversity.Horse Hockey!
Do you run or own one of these Cancer producing spas?
Doctors in the USA want all tanning booths banned!
CBS News yesterday did a story on this saying women under 30 who regularly use tanning beds have ~75% chance increase in getting skin cancer in their life! You get a tan and the cancer comes later for free!....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/28/eveningnews/main5194604.shtml
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10814171
Just goes to show you what a study says.A 75% increased not just of skin cancer it was melonoma,the deadliest skin cancer.Kills you in 6 months if it goes undetected.I never even looked at the links.It has been all over the news since the end of july.
Now comes the boring part.This was a recent review of the studies witch were done over the last 20 years on indoor tanning.And the way the review was done to arrive at the desired result was to only include skin type 1's who do not possess the genetic ability to produce a tan.And skin type two's who can barely tan.This was done simply because these are the people who are most prone to skin cancer.
What they don't tell you ,because it will not scare you away,is that when the same data is applied to individuals who have the ability to tan THERE IS NO INCREASE IN RISK.none
Now comes the real funny part.They are talking relative risk,So the previous # was 1 in 100,000 after applying the data to just fair skinned individuals it went to 1.75 in 100,000 there you have your 75% increase in "risk".Scary stuff huh?
As a matter of a fact there is not one single study that exist that shows that tanning ,indoors or out in a non burning fashion has nothing but benefits.
So once again the press is right,tanning is bad...use sunscreen..take vitamin d pills,have a glass of milk.
Actually the vitamin d produced from a tanning bed equals about 100 glasses of milk.
And no, you can not over produce it.Your very intelligently desinged body will stop producing it when your tank is full.
Long term exposure to sun is not good. You may not see the effect now, or in a few years..but when you are 50-60 or even early depending on your genetic susceptibility skin changes will be apparent. some of which may lead to cancer.
Vitamin D production used as justification to tanning is simply rationalization.
All you need is to spend 5-30 minutes outside twice week and you got your requirement of vitamin D...if your production is through the sun only.
2 glasses of milk, 1 1/2 glasses of orange juice will meet your requirement alone of 200 UI (5 micrograms, >15 ng/mL) of Vit D.
Therefore sitting there baking with the intent of producing adequate vit D is weak.
There is such as having too much vitamin D...and it is considered potentially toxic (>200 ng/mL). However "excessive sun exposure does not result in vitamin D toxicity because the sustained heat on the skin is thought to photodegrade previtamin D3 and vitamin D3 as it is formed. High intakes of dietary vitamin D are very unlikely to result in toxicity unless large amounts of cod liver oil are consumed; toxicity is more likely to occur from high intakes of supplements"
With suntanning....it is the UV rays that get you in the end.
Say no to unprotected/excessive tanning.
Become Nicole Kidman (well..no need to be that extreme)
I like a good tan...but tan intellegently...because i also like the idea a being cancer free.
Vitamin D production used as justification to tanning is simply rationalization.
All you need is to spend 5-30 minutes outside twice week and you got your requirement of vitamin D...if your production is through the sun only.
2 glasses of milk, 1 1/2 glasses of orange juice will meet your requirement alone of 200 UI (5 micrograms, >15 ng/mL) of Vit D.
Therefore sitting there baking with the intent of producing adequate vit D is weak.
There is such as having too much vitamin D...and it is considered potentially toxic (>200 ng/mL). However "excessive sun exposure does not result in vitamin D toxicity because the sustained heat on the skin is thought to photodegrade previtamin D3 and vitamin D3 as it is formed. High intakes of dietary vitamin D are very unlikely to result in toxicity unless large amounts of cod liver oil are consumed; toxicity is more likely to occur from high intakes of supplements"
With suntanning....it is the UV rays that get you in the end.
Say no to unprotected/excessive tanning.
Become Nicole Kidman (well..no need to be that extreme)
I like a good tan...but tan intellegently...because i also like the idea a being cancer free.
You got it.You hit the nail on the head.You enjoy being cancer free,so do I.And if you actually were to look at the real data you would see that the canadian cancer society recently upped it's recomended daily value of vit d requirement to 1,000 iu's...not the glass of milk you reffer to.
The reason for this is that numerous ,numerous studies are showing that those who have the highest levels of vit d in the bloodstream have the lowest levels of deadly cancers and many other dieases.It is estimated that 200-500 people die from too little sun in comparision to too much sun.
The cdn gov't is the only country in the world currently looking at swine flu insulation thru increased vit d in the bloodstream.Viroligist for a long time have been pointing out a link.Ever notice when flu season occurs? All over the world...in wintertime,when vit d levels fall.
5-30 minutes once or twice a week is woefully inadequate.Our ancestors spent almost all of their time outdoors and would have been producing up to 10,000 iu's a day.So why do we just need.never mind 200,or even a 1,000 iu's.Rheinhart Veith,who is a major vit d researcher right here in Toronto says upwards of 4,000.
