'No doubt' sunbeds cause cancer

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8172690.stm

Had been thinking about this lately. Vitamin D, which the body creates from UV light exposure is needed to protect against bone problems and even MS. Incidence increases proportionately to how far populations are from the equator. There's even a higher rate in Northern Ireland compared to the Republic. So in a country where we're not getting enough sun should we be using a UV replacement even if there are cancer risks?

So was wondering what most doctors think of sunbeds? I mean I've never used one but I have been burnt by the sun regularly. I have typical "Irish" freckle-y skin.

Whats the main difference between sunbeds and UV from the sun? Perhaps if I'd used sunbeds and developed a tan slowly I wouldn't have been burnt by the sun, and possibly been at less of a risk.

I assume like everything else, usage, skin type, genetic make up, play a part in increasing the risk of skin cancer.

As what would have been considered (from what I've read) a heavy sunbed user in summertime, abstaining in the winter in my twenties for at least three years or so, I noted that the biggest mole change and increase in number of moles was when I permanently stopped using sunbeds, and exposed myself to the sun on holidays coverered correctly in a 20+ SPF.
I don't know if this was as a result of previous sunbed use or other.

Being a little wiser perhaps??, I now expose myself to the sun for only short sporadic periods in Ireland when its out to avail of vitamin D.
Usually back of the legs, and arms.
UV light is also present under cloud cover during the summer months, so a body can sit outside and exposes themselves to avail of vitamin D.

Interesting about MS, with a "history" of MS in my paternal side and also a somewhat limited knowledge of the benefits of UV in immuno protection against some viruses, I tend not to avoid "the light" but rather take it in very light moderation now rather than being a sun worshipper.

From a personal point of view, with my skin type, and personal attitude to the sun, I rarely, if ever, remember burned in "real" UVA/UVB light outdoors.
On a sunbed, it's direct, you are paying for a "session" to tan you specifically, rather than just being outdoors doing regular activities.

shqipshume wrote: »

I am sick of this:rolleyes: everything is bad for you now for god sake shut the hell up(at the people who keep bringing up these scare mongering findings) People already know!
To much milk kills you,if you cook carrots after you peel them gives you cancer.:rolleyes: Everything is bad for you lol

I do some sun beds now and again and i dont sun bathe in the sun outside at all.Cover up your skin with sun block.


<snip>


I worked in a salon before and its the likes of the people i saw come in there that are causing scares like these.
One girl no more than six stone at age of 21 would come in there and go on fifteen mins every single night,she then went off on holiday to Portugal and sun bathed there everyday,first day came back got on sun bed :eek:

The industry should be regulated to state that rather than 1 "session" in 24 hours, that a person can only do one "session" in 48-72 hour period at least.
This needs to be defined. Also the definition of a "session" needs to be defined by intensity and session time.

Back in the day I remember in some salons being told to reduce my time from 5-8 minutes to 3 because "the bulbs had just been changed".

That speaks volumes.

More well know Salon's tend to advise more at the counter but without disrespect and with note, I hardly think that the person in front of me is qualified to calculate the intensity of the bulbs, pays due note to my skin type, or cares more about safety, than the signs that state "at your own risk", than the person getting on the machines.

shqipshume wrote: »

That was me

I agree staff should be allowed to stop people from over using but unfortunately no matter how much i wanted to stop that girl i had no authority to do so

the law should be with you to refuse entry.
much like a bouncer

The only thing that stands in the way of that really is prepayment offers like, 60 mins for 40 Euro. if you take that away then people can't complain because they cant cause a fuss for being refused for a service they haven't prepaid for.

shqipshume wrote: »

I am sick of this:rolleyes: everything is bad for you now for god sake shut the hell up(at the people who keep bringing up these scare mongering findings) People already know!

Yoink! I have to quote you too! I like yourstyle here but I think that the research was warranted. HOWEVER, you are right: Everything i bad for you to some degree. You can get cancer from alcohol, oral sex, chemicals that are found in everyday foods, smoking, etc. We shall pick on the tanning industry for now though. THe tobacco one needs a breather, but we'll be back attacking that industry again I assume.

... ...To be honest, I prefer white-skinned girls anyway, and I think that Irish people look dreadful when tanned. It's even worse when they use fake-tan.

shqipshume wrote: »

Then drinking should be banned,light drinks of all kinds packet foods,we should just start growing vegetables in back garden and live on fruit and veg,also no meat or poultry unless you own them and kill them yourself ,no sweets etc..... :rolleyes:


<SNIP>
.
Smoking though however i wish they would ban completely even their sales or manufacture cause i smoke and i hate them.My only vice

No my point is that tobacco is disproportionately dangerous as it is addictive and carcinogenic. A low intake of alcohol is actually good for you.