first sunbed session today!

lilyella

Firstly, i know the dangers of sunbeds but iv decided to go on them just for 3 weeks as im goign to the US for the summer and want a base before i go! Im fair enough but tan easily. Chose chartbusters anyway cos its near. they only allow 3mins the first time for people which is a good idea to prevent people scalding themselves. Has anyone else any experience of using the ones in chartbusters? Should i get a base if i use it 4times a week for the next 3wks? oh and was just wondering should i buy a tanning lotion? thanks girls

ciakee

Hi Lillyella,

Being honest I'm not sure what strength these chartbuster ones are....are they stand up showers or lie down beds? It doesn't really make any odds I don't think, sometimes the stand up ones are stronger but it all depends on the strength of the bulbs.

I used to go on em all the time, was thinking of this summer again but just can't afford it at the mo. I think the most important thing is don't overdo it, 4 times in one week sounds extreme. What type of skin have you, do you tan easily? I would pay close attention to the effect it's having on your skin, err on the side of caution and stick to short periods, infrequently. You absolutely don't want to get burnt. I generally find that once a week for a few weeks before I head anywhere is sufficient to just prepare my skin. Ya don't need to have a full on tan going over, you'll have plenty time for that all summer!!

I would recommend wearing sun cream too, I know many people don't but i feel safer to be honest

I think it is a missed opportunity to not work the pale leprechaun chick angle while in america.

Babette08

The weather has been amazing all weekend?? Think you're mad going on them - but then if you're looking for skin in a few years time like that bronzed babe in 'Something about Mary' go for it!! Only kidding - as a once off you should be ok..just go to a decent salon and do it very gradually

Maple

Reckon 4 times a week for 3 weeks is way too much myself. Suppose it would depend on length of each session tho. If its 3 minutes each time then its not so bad but really wouldn't recommend any more than 10 minutes a week myself.

How Strange

I completely disagree with using sunbeds. Sitting in the sun with a low sunfactor is bad enough but at least there is something natural to it and you get some benefits but roasting yourself like a pig on a spit. :eek: Not to mention skin cancer.

Imagine yourself in 10-15years time and imagine dark pigmentation marks all over your face every time you get a tiny bit of sun. I've seen people as young as 28 with sun damage and they were the sun worshippers.

Get a good false tan and tan naturally and safely over in America.

idunnoutellme

Hi
Definitely buy a tanning cream, without it you wont tan and will get burned, from my experience anyway. I went to chartbusters before, wasnt impressed with their knowledge of whats safe and recommendations. 4 times a week sounds like waay too much.
I go to a salon that has a sunbed with a vibration plate, and has tanned me faster than any other sunbed did before. Its manufactured by a medical company that made it so the skin damage is minimal by putting in mirrors behind the bulbs, and the bulbs are lower power too.
I found the chartbusters beds are sometimes not cleaned after each person. Make sure you watch that.

How Strange

idunnoutellme wrote: »

Hi
I go to a salon that has a sunbed with a vibration plate, and has tanned me faster than any other sunbed did before. Its manufactured by a medical company that made it so the skin damage is minimal by putting in mirrors behind the bulbs,

I really doubt that a 'medical' company have designed a sun bed when the medical sector are blue in the face warning people to stay away from them.

I suppose its the Irish people's (mostly girls) preoccupation with the perma tan that has these places still in business but don't fool yourself that you're not doing any damage. Premature wrinkles, pigmentation and skin cancer are the prices for vanity.

ztoical

How Strange wrote: »

I really doubt that a 'medical' company have designed a sun bed when the medical sector are blue in the face warning people to stay away from them.

aren't some medical groups and the cancer society pushing for an out right ban on sunbeds?

Red Hand

Wear sunscreen! A girl I know went sunbed tanning the first time a few weeks ago and got sunstroke. Burned herself as well, and she was only on it for the shortest time.

swordsgal27

Hiya , i started doing the ones in chartbusters 2 weeks ago 3 a week and there brill , started a 6 mins and now doing 8 , dont wanna do the 10 mins as i find 8 plenty , once a year i do em for 2/3 weeks before i go away and i havnt once burnt , either on the sunbed or on my holliers , also i never use the facial tanner , i always turn it off , days like today when im glad i started doin them , nice an brown in my skirt

event

lilyella wrote: »

Firstly, i know the dangers of sunbeds but iv decided to go on them just for 3 weeks as im goign to the US for the summer and want a base before i go! Im fair enough but tan easily. Chose chartbusters anyway cos its near. they only allow 3mins the first time for people which is a good idea to prevent people scalding themselves. Has anyone else any experience of using the ones in chartbusters? Should i get a base if i use it 4times a week for the next 3wks? oh and was just wondering should i buy a tanning lotion? thanks girls

did everyone miss that bit?

Blush_01

Only you know what you want regarding a tan. Whether we think it's a good idea or not is our opinion. But I'd imagine that by posting the fact you're going to a sunbed here you're looking for feedback.

I don't use fake tanners, I avoid the sun, and I would never dream of using a tanning bed - just so you know where I'm coming from when I say this.

I don't understand why anyone would want to fry themselves for a temporary fix that'll make for a permanent problem in a few years time. It's totally up to you, but I can't understand the motivation behind it.

monkeyfudge

Moonbaby wrote: »

I think it is a missed opportunity to not work the pale leprechaun chick angle while in america.

Oh I agree completely.

I also find it hilarious that the only place you can get a tan in Ireland is in a video shop.

sam34

event wrote: »

did everyone miss that bit?

no, no, i didnt miss it at all, but i'm surprised to say the least, that if the op really knows the danger of sunbeds, as she claims she does, that she plans on having 12 sessions in 3 weeks.

asking for serious trouble, as well as less serious cosmetic problems.

echosound

ztoical wrote: »

aren't some medical groups and the cancer society pushing for an out right ban on sunbeds?

yep, and in the meantime they're hoping to at the very least put an age restriction on it (18+), so idiot mothers can't fry their daughters in the run up to communions and the like.

cuckoo

echosound wrote: »

yep, and in the meantime they're hoping to at the very least put an age restriction on it (18+), so idiot mothers can't fry their daughters in the run up to communions and the like.

People do that to their kids?!? :eek:

PrettyInPunk

I dont think the OP posted on here to get a lecture

ANYWAYS if your beginning four sessions a week is probably a bit much, you might find yourself very eager at the start because the tan wont build up untill youve done a few sessions, take it slowly and also its very easy to get burnt, how pale is your skin?

Sangre

considering how pale most irish people are getting a 'base tan' is pretty pointless since you'll stick out like a sore thumb anyway. not really worth the skin damage.

i always thought it was funny how people usually look healthier with a tan even though all a tan is is damaged skin.

monkeyfudge

It looks like you've been working in the fields all day.

Pale and interesting FTW!

Abi

I worked in a beauty salon for a while. Prior to that I took the odd session just before the summer weather. Since working there I've never gone back to a tanning bed. The smell of burning skin is putrid.

Glowing

idunnoutellme wrote: »

Its manufactured by a medical company that made it so the skin damage is minimal by putting in mirrors behind the bulbs, and the bulbs are lower power too.

Haha! Thats the biggest load of B*ll*cks I've ever read!

Do you HONESTLY believe that?!

Dudess

cuckoo wrote: »

People do that to their kids?!? :eek:

You'd better believe it.

Glowing wrote: »

Haha! Thats the biggest load of B*ll*cks I've ever read!

Do you HONESTLY believe that?!

Love the irony of your name, Glowing!

idunnoutellme

Glowing wrote: »

Haha! Thats the biggest load of B*ll*cks I've ever read!

Do you HONESTLY believe that?!

And why exactly not? Tanning is a huge industry and there is big money for someone that makes the safest sunbed in the market.
www.qmed.it is the medical company i was talkin about....

How Strange

idunnoutellme wrote: »

And why exactly not? Tanning is a huge industry and there is big money for someone that makes the safest sunbed in the market.
www.qmed.it is the medical company i was talkin about....

The safest sunbed on the market is under a sun umbrella. The idea of a safe tanning bed is a complete contradiction. There is no such thing.

Sugar Drunk

why so many lectures?surely its safer to build up a base tan on a sunbed than to go abroad and get burnt? OP, get some of the beta gold tablets from the tony quinn store. If you take them you need less sunbed sessions to go brown and they also reduce the risk of your skin burning.
I took them 2 years ago. Built up a base tan before I went away and on the tablets I had a tan in just a few sessions. It was scorching in cyprus and I never burnt instead I got a fab dark tan much safer than going over and burning the hell out of yourself and ruining a holiday.

i would never think a very pale freckly skinned person should do sunbed but if you are sallow skin i dont see the harm. Im sallow skinned myself and look dreadful and ill when pale. in winter I use st tropez but fake tan and swimming pools are a disaster so if I go abraod I always build up a base first. I was out with no suncream on monday, skin went slightly red but is brown already, its just the sort of skin I have.

I wonder how many people who rant about the dangers of sunbeds are smokers??

Dudess

Sugar Drunk wrote: »

surely its safer to build up a base tan on a sunbed than to go abroad and get burnt?...much safer than going over and burning the hell out of yourself and ruining a holiday.

Not an issue if you use a good sunblock.

PrettyInPunk

idunnoutellme wrote: »

And why exactly not? Tanning is a huge industry and there is big money for someone that makes the safest sunbed in the market.
www.qmed.it is the medical company i was talkin about....

Where are these beds in Ireland?

Ger the man

There is a tanning salon not too far from my house and next door to that is a chemist. The salon has a huge advert in the window about the latest sun bed offer and the chemist has an even bigger advert about skin cancer statistics in Ireland!

Sugar Drunk

Dudess wrote: »

Not an issue if you use a good sunblock.

thats fine for those who want to stay pale. I look a lot better with a tan and my skin tans v easily so Id rather go on hols and get a bit of colour that cover myself in sun block and sit in the shade. To be honest if people are terrified of the sun why go on holidays to a sunny place its beyond me!

ztoical

Sugar Drunk wrote: »

surely its safer to build up a base tan on a sunbed than to go abroad and get burnt?

actually its not as the level of radiation your exposed to is much higher on a sunbed then natural sunlight and its also a different forum of UV light used on a tanning bed then you'd get being outside.

Your also more likely to burn in natural light if you've a sun bed tan due to this difference in UV light removing your skins natural protection.

idunnoutellme

why are all the haters still arguing their case here?
the girl asked advice on how many sessions do to and how long.
if your skin is very pale then do the minimal amount of tan allowed and leave a day inbetween sessions or whatever time it takes for the redness to go down if you get any.
for sallow skin you can be a bit more adventurous.
sunbed is controlled UV. out in the sunshine is not.
also get a special tanning cream because wearing sunblock on a sunbed would just defeat the purpose. i just wear some on my face and any freckles

Faith

It would be negligent of us as humans not to warn the girl of the dangers. If someone posted "First up, I know the dangers of smoking, but I'm going away soon and want to look cool, so I'm going to start smoking now. What brands should I smoke to get the strongest hit? I'm thinking of smoking 40 a day for three weeks before I go, is that enough?", nobody would just start posting recommendations for cigarette brands.

Sun beds are skin cancer in a box, just like cigarettes are lung cancer in a box.

Secondly:

lilyella wrote:

Firstly, i know the dangers of sunbeds

No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't dream of using them.

Glowing

In the process of getting a tan, you ARE damaging your skin and you ARE putting yourself at a higher risk of getting skin cancer, and premature ageing.

Whether or not you burn in the process doesn't make a difference! And the method you use to get your tan doesn't make a difference either! It's all damage at the end of the day!

Go and look cool with your tan OP but when you have a nice skin graft somewhere don't say we didn't warn you.

PeakOutput

Sangre wrote: »

i always thought it was funny how people usually look healthier with a tan even though all a tan is is damaged skin.

cite that please, i was always told tanning is a result of your body building up resistance to uv not repairing damage to it....if you dont let your body build up its resistance first THEN you get damaged in the form of burning

op everything gives you cancer these days if you educate yourself on the subject first and still think its worth the risks(like loads of things in life are) then go for it

Katja

An article on tanning beds

"A safe tanning bed is like saying there is a safe cigarette. It doesn't exist."

More about the risks of tanning and cancer but this one explains why tanning=damaged skin.

Also search for this: Woollons, A., Clingen, P.H., Price, M.L., Arlett, C.F., Green, M.H.L. Induction of mutagenic DNA damage in human fibroblasts after exposure to artificial tanning lamps. British Journal of Dermatology 1997; It's a bit outdated though.

Whispered

I have never done sunbeds, I just couldn't be bothered. But I think 4 times a week is way too much. I bumped into a girl recently who I used to be friends with, and when I knew her she had fair skin and dark hair. She was a stunning looking girl. Now she's like a fecking oompa loompa. Totally orange-brown and parts of her face look dirty. This is not a fake tan that caused it, I think she just overdid it on the beds.

Star Lord

idunnoutellme wrote: »

And why exactly not? Tanning is a huge industry and there is big money for someone that makes the safest sunbed in the market.
www.qmed.it is the medical company i was talkin about....

From their site:

www.qmed.ie wrote:

Quadra Medical srl : Company Profile

Add Beauty to Your Life

A young and dynamic team with an ambitious dream, founded Quadra Medical srl in 1994, with the goal to create high technology for the beauty and wellness market. With over 30 years of know how and the extreme drive to innovate, the company conquered in just a few years their local market and international market to attain market leadership.

They're a sunbed company.

Just because they call themselves Quadra "Medical", does not make them a medical company.

A medical company would not make sunbeds.

You said you know the risks, yet you're still going to use one? I doubt you really know the risks then...

metaoblivia

Sugar Drunk wrote: »

why so many lectures?
I wonder how many people who rant about the dangers of sunbeds are smokers??

I rant about the dangers of sunbeds and I don't smoke. In fact, I'd say similar things about both - bad for your health, can lead to cancer, and damages your skin leading to premature aging. I grew up in Florida. Tanning is a sport there, and I've seen firsthand the damage that both overexposure to the sun and tanning beds can do to someone. Perhaps you don't know anyone who's had skin cancer in their 20's, but I have. Two of my friend's mothers have died from skin cancer. I know many more who have either had skin cancer or pre cancerous growths that had to be removed. If the OP was truly aware of the dangers, she'd take better care of herself.

Dudess

Sugar Drunk wrote: »

thats fine for those who want to stay pale. I look a lot better with a tan and my skin tans v easily so Id rather go on hols and get a bit of colour that cover myself in sun block and sit in the shade. To be honest if people are terrified of the sun why go on holidays to a sunny place its beyond me!

Well a sun screen/lotion/cream/whatever then. Surely you wear one? You're trying to say it's better to go on holidays with a base than to get burnt. I'm saying you won't get burnt if you use skin protection from the sun - a base isn't the only thing that will prevent burning. Using skin protection is not just something which is done by those who want to stay pale, it's also done by those who want to get a tan.

PeakOutput

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

You said you know the risks, yet you're still going to use one? I doubt you really know the risks then...

why would you say that you have no idea what she does or dosnt know. this is typical preacher bull. you say you know but you dont have the same opinion as me so you obviously dont know at all.

i know people who smoke, who use tanning beds, who jump out of planes, who kayak on the most dangerous rivers in the world, they all know the risks but they choose to do it anyway if you choose not to thats fine but your no better or worse then they are because of it

*i use you in the royal sense i just happen to have quoted diablo


thanks for the reference katja i think we have two different definitions of damaged skin but thats fine

metaoblivia

PeakOutput wrote: »

thanks for the reference katja i think we have two different definitions of damaged skin but thats fine

What's your definition of damaged skin?

Blush_01

Do you really want to know?

I think anyone who would willingly scorch themselves is a bit thick. Just a personal opinion mind!

As for the poster who said you shouldn't holiday in a sunny place if you don't want to tan - what a load of nonsense. So you should ignore a beautiful place with a rich culture and some fantastic natural or historical sights simply because it's sunny there and you don't intend on attempting to get skin cancer? Right... now I see your point.

PeakOutput

metaoblivia wrote: »

What's your definition of damaged skin?

cells die and rejuvinate all the time the page you linked to says "Some physicians consider the skin's tanning a response to injury because it appears after the sun's UV rays have killed some cells and damaged others." it dosnt say any permanent damage is caused, now im not disputing that permanent damage can occur i just think you are exagerating how easy it is to get to this stage of damage especially in natural sunlight

Dudess

Blush_01 wrote: »

Do you really want to know?

I think anyone who would willingly scorch themselves is a bit thick. Just a personal opinion mind!

As for the poster who said you shouldn't holiday in a sunny place if you don't want to tan - what a load of nonsense. So you should ignore a beautiful place with a rich culture and some fantastic natural or historical sights simply because it's sunny there and you don't intend on attempting to get skin cancer? Right... now I see your point.

Yeah, I kinda wonder do people actually enjoy sunbathing (one of the most boring, uncomfortable pursuits in existence) or are they willing to put themselves through several extremely unpleasant hours due to an "obligation" to get tanned?

metaoblivia

PeakOutput wrote: »

cells die and rejuvinate all the time the page you linked to says "Some physicians consider the skin's tanning a response to injury because it appears after the sun's UV rays have killed some cells and damaged others." it dosnt say any permanent damage is caused, now im not disputing that permanent damage can occur i just think you are exagerating how easy it is to get to this stage of damage especially in natural sunlight

Firstly, I didn't link to anything. That was katja. Secondly, you didn't answer my question. What is your definition of damaged skin? My definition is when you've spent so much time in the sun that signs of premature aging start showing up (for example, the 40 year old women in Ft. Lauderdale who look like brown, wrinkled leather bags), when you develop precancerous growths or cancerous growths. People with pale skin are more likely to suffer from skin damage, and given that this is an Irish board, I would imagine that most of us are pretty pale, thus requiring that we be careful with our skin.
And finally, doctors only recommend 15 minutes of natural sun exposure a few times a week. This article (which also talks about the benefits of brief periods of sun exposure) is a reference:
http://www.docshop.com/2008/03/31/here-comes-the-sun-risks-and-benefits-of-sun-exposure/

How Strange

PeakOutput wrote: »

cite that please, i was always told tanning is a result of your body building up resistance to uv not repairing damage to it....if you dont let your body build up its resistance first THEN you get damaged in the form of burning

ROTFL.... :rolleyes:
Honestly, if you could see 10 years down the line and see the damage you are doing to your skin you would stop sitting in the sun and using sun beds. Two friends of mine - both very sallow, both loved to sit in the sun and get great tans. I was always envious. Now, one has stopped completely as she noticed she had pigmentation marks on her face as soon as she gets any sun at all and now wears sun block. The other girl has very very bad pigmentation all over her face and upper body. We are all early 30's. I have none thankfully but I did realise in my early 20's that I just don't tan. I had a UV test done on my face a few years ago and I'm very lucky as there is no sun damage. Two women, in their mid 30's, had it done just before me. They were laughing about how they love their tans and use beds. Let's just say they weren't laughing when they had their UV tests done. They were told NEVER to sit in the sun again and always wear factor 30+ even in the shade.

As for skin damage; the appearance of freckles is a sign of your skin being damaged by UV rays.

op everything gives you cancer these days if you educate yourself on the subject first and still think its worth the risks(like loads of things in life are) then go for it

Again, ROTFL :rolleyes:
If you educated yourself then you WOULDN'T use sun beds. So to say educate yourself about the risks of cancer and use them anyway is like saying educate yourself about burning your arm if you put it in the fire but then do it regardless.

I know someone with terminal cancer, she didn't smoke or sunbathe or do anything high risk but after looking at her struggle to cope/survive for over a year there is no way I would do anything to increase my risks of the dreaded C.

As bad as sunbathing is, slap on a high factor and enjoy it if thats your thing. The sun is actually very good for us but sun beds have no benefits at all. It really is a human bbq and is artificially burning our skin.

How Strange

I'd also like to add that Irish girls fascination with sun beds, tans and false tans makes them look hideous when you stand them beside french, spanish, italian girls or girls from any other country. Oompa Loompa. But I suppose it's a sheep mentality.

idunnoutellme

Hi
I'd just like to argue my pro-sunbed case with the following article:
http://www.sunbed-tech.co.za/myths.htm
again everyone has the right to their own opinion but i'm a grown up person and have decided to do a couple sessions on the sunbed understanding the risks, and also knowing that I wont abuse the sunbeds.
I find the comparison to cigarette smoking unsuitable, as people who get lung cancer smoke alot and for years before they get it. if i had 10/12 cigarettes a year there is a very small chance id catch lung cancer dont you think?
so if i get a little sun exposure (i dunno 10 sessions of 8 minutes a year) i'm very unlikely to get skin cancer? considering i'm hardly gonna be able to find scorching sun outside in ireland.
it all comes down to knowing the one thats one too many in my opinion. everything is ok once its in moderation.
bar drugs of course...dont do drugs kids stay in school

ztoical

idunnoutellme wrote: »

Hi
I'd just like to argue my pro-sunbed case with the following article:
http://www.sunbed-tech.co.za/myths.htm

Ok I'm sorry but thats a piece on a website called sunbed-tech - company that makes sunbeds of course they are going to be pro. Their FAQ's did make me laugh thou esp the last one:

If all this is true, why do I still hear that tanning is bad for you?

Anyone who makes the blanket statement that any tanning is bad for you probably has not read much on this issue. And you have to remember that many industries make billions of dollars scaring people about sunshine. Multibillion dollar pharmaceutical firms that manufacture sun-screen lotion fund the studies and promote the findings, often out of context.

but the end of the page we get what sunbed-tech does:

Servicing and Repairs to all leading Sunbed brands.

So their not like those other industries making money off scaring people about sunshine. I'm pretty sure the Irish Cancer society has read alot on the issue and they still want an out right ban and I fail to see how they could be reaping in billions from that.

How Strange

+1 ztoical

ztoical wrote: »

Anyone who makes the blanket statement that any tanning is bad for you probably has not read much on this issue. And you have to remember that many industries make billions of dollars scaring people about sunshine. Multibillion dollar pharmaceutical firms that manufacture sun-screen lotion fund the studies and promote the findings, often out of context.[/I]

That is hilarious. So a corporation making billions out of the sun bed industry is slinging mud at pharma companies that manufacture sunscreens. And if you aren't pro-tanning then you are somehow ignorant of the facts.

So their not like those other industries making money off scaring people about sunshine. I'm pretty sure the Irish Cancer society has read alot on the issue and they still want an out right ban and I fail to see how they could be reaping in billions from that.

The upshot is that the su bed corporation accuses the pharma industries and the cancer awareness societies of a conflict of interest.
Where is Michael Moore when you need him.

idunnoutellme ...I find the comparison to cigarette smoking unsuitable, as people who get lung cancer smoke alot and for years before they get it. if i had 10/12 cigarettes a year there is a very small chance id catch lung cancer dont you think?
so if i get a little sun exposure (i dunno 10 sessions of 8 minutes a year) i'm very unlikely to get skin cancer?

I find the comparison very suitable and if you don't it's because it effectively bedunks your theory. Re lung cancer; it has been scientifically and medically proven that passive smoking is as bad as smoking yourself. Also I know people who got lung cancer and they never smoked.
10 sessions x 8 minutes is not a little sun exposure. That's 80mins of high levels of falsely tanning your skin.

Go ahead and use the tanning beds if that's what you want but don't kid yourself that it's safe or risk free from cancer. It's far from safe and will greatly increase your risk of skin cancer.