Is indoor tanning dangerous? It is the expressed opinion of qualified medical experts who have studied the subject that indoor tanning is not safe. They see first-hand the cancers caused by UV exposure, and deaths from those cancers. Various sources report 700 to 1,200 emergency room visits each year from UV injuries such as eye exposures and burns. Diseases that are not caused by UV exposure can worsen due to the exposure. UV exposure causes cataracts. When UV exposure compromises the autoimmune system your body is more vulnerable to many kinds of disease, including herpes and HIV. And it is well documented that all three kinds of skin cancer are caused by excessive UV exposure. Although melanoma is the least common, and greatest contributor of deaths for the three skin cancers, basal and squamous cell cancers also kill. Even if a death does not occur, do you really want a big chunk of your lip cut out to save your life? Hence, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission enforces federal laws prohibiting any advertising that claims indoor tanning is safe or healthy.There have been claims that exposure to UV has caused some people to die because their organs were baked from the inside out. Is this a real risk in tanning? This is a classical urban myth that has been propagated in many forms. Although ultraviolet radiation is adjacent to x-rays on the electromagnetic spectrum, it is at the opposite end from microwaves, which are used for cooking. There is no basis for claiming that exposure to UV can bake a person from the inside out and kill them. However, there is evidence of several cases of deaths that have occurred following exposure to UV in a tanning bed. In general, the deaths were caused by excessive whole body exposure that resulted in overwhelming infections. The death was caused by infection, not the UV exposure directly. And the extensiveness of the burns was due to hyper-sensitivity of the client to UV, in most such cases because they were taking a photosensitizing medication and exposure times were not adjusted accordingly. So, while the notion of being “baked” to death is unfounded, the potential for serious consequences up to and including death from exposure to UV in a tanning bed is factual. Because there are medications that dramatically increase photosensitivity it is essential that anyone being treated with prescribed medications be aware of the potential for increased effects, even if they are only exposed to natural sunlight. For example, if you normally are accustomed to achieving a certain level of tan in twenty minutes at the beach, then due to a health problem you begin using an antibiotic, you are likely to find that you can get a burn with much less exposure than you expected.
Isn’t vitamin D only available from UV sources, like sunlight and/or tanning beds? No. The ultraviolet rays from natural sunlight and tanning beds may provide some potential development of Vitamin D, but they are not the sole sources. So called “artificial” vitamins are made by exposing yeasts to UV, so that they are actually an indirect source of vitamin D production from UV exposure. Outdoor sun exposure that occurs in conjunction with healthy physical activity is a safer source of UV then an electrical device when done responsibility. A machine that generates UV rays in conjunction with industrial machine electromagnetic emissions of other types, and potentially subjects the user to transmissible diseases if good hygiene practices are not followed is not a clean or safe source of UV. During months where outdoor exposure to natural sunlight is not available vitamin D requirements may be met by eating natural foods high in that substance. The National Institutes of Health food table shows that one serving of salmon can meet 90% of the recommended daily value for adults (http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp). And nutritional supplements may be taken in more precise amounts than what the body produces by skin exposure to UV rays, since each person responds differently to any given amount of UV exposure from external sources. Also, the aged, highly pigmented skin, albinism, and those with certain disease conditions may not be able to tolerate UV exposure or effectively utilize the rays, so must meet their daily vitamin D requirements in safe alternative ways.
But aren’t tanning bed lamps just a purer form of natural sunlight? No. the UV emissions from a tanning bed lamp are engineered to restrict rays to specific wavelengths known to contribute most to tanning. These wavelengths also are the major energies that can cause burns, cancer, and damage to your eyes. Natural sunlight is a mixture of many kinds of energy and the human body has developed since the dawn of man to be most effective in response to this natural form. You might compare it to eating a piece of chalk to get your calcium, versus meeting calcium needs through a variety of foods that have corresponding nutrients of other kinds coordinating how your body uses the element. Just as pure concentrated sugar is not as healthy as natural sugars in fruit, it is not reasonable to expect artificial machine generated narrow energy rays are as healthy as full spectrum natural sun rays.
I have heard that the tanning units provide a more controlled source of UV than sunlight because there are so many variables involved with outdoor sun exposure. Doesn’t that make indoor tanning better and safer? No, again. It is true that natural sunlight is a variable source of UV exposure, affected by weather, cloud cover, season of the year, time of the day, latitude, and holes in the ozone layer. However, indoor tanning units also are subject to many variables such as age of the lamps, timer variability, lamp variability, acrylic condition, lamp mixture (old vs new, different types in the same unit), distance from the source, type of bed (high/low), ballast and starter status, lamp compatibility and use of tan enhancers. The variables of skin type, pre-existing disease, consumption of photosensitizing foods or medications, prior exposure history, hydration and age of the client all affect both indoor and outdoor UV biological responses. In summary, there are many variables affecting exposure to UV and no claim can be made that one is “controlled” while the other is not. The notion that one exact exposure time, or type of lamp fits all is not controlled. It will under represent the dangers to some while over representing the benefits to others. For more on this go to Tan Myth.
I have heard that all this anti-tanning rhetoric is promoted by big businesses and doctors who make money from selling sunscreen products. Well, the facts about skin cancer, cataracts, and autoimmune depression are supported by researchers world wide who are not just those in the medical field. The sales of special skin products, tanning sessions, lamps, machines, and related products constitute a business that takes in more than five billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) a year (Looking Fit magazine), through about 27,000 tanning salons. To pretend that tanning is not a big business, or that vendors have no vested interest in getting you to use their products and services to make that money is naïve. That creates a conflict of interest that any prudent customer must consider when evaluating the authenticity of claims made to influence tanning behaviors.
Doctors use ultraviolet lights to treat disease. And UV is used to sterilize certain kinds of materials. Isn’t this evidence that UV exposure is good, and makes the equipment safe so that clients won’t get diseases? First of all, when UV is used to treat medical conditions it is prescribed, yes.. prescribed, by a physician who specifies exactly how much exposure is desirable to get the intended effect, and who monitors the patient to insure that effect, and no other, occurs. Exposure for medical conditions is most likely to be restricted to certain areas of the body, while indoor tanning exposes the entire body. This comparison is analogous to x-ray therapy where a cancer may be treated and successfully cured by exposure over a small area of the body to levels of radiation that would be lethal if received over the whole body. When used for medical purposes it is short term, while tanning sessions for many tanners may occur several times a week for many months or in some cases years. And tanning is conducted without medical supervision to evaluate the biological effects. The UV used for medical treatments is from equipment with a different emission spectrum than indoor tanning lamps, and some conditions for which benefit is claimed, such as SAD (winter blues) don’t even use UV at all. The light used to treat SAD is deliberately intended to avoid UV exposure. Yet some claim that tanning is effective for the treatment of SAD. There is evidence that for clients who claim a beneficial effect following exposure to UV further research supports a placebo effect. In other words, you may feel better because you expect to feel better and not because of any real biological influence of the UV. It’s like believing that a stick hung around your neck will improve your mental health, then trying it and finding you feel better. The stick actually had no effect except your belief that they would help. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission prohibits any claims of medical benefit from indoor tanning. If there were medical benefits the application of UV would constitute a practice of medicine, require a license, and must be operated by trained clinicians with appropriate educational credentials.
What diseases can a person get from indoor tanning? Indoor tanning has disease effects associated with it, but it is important to be aware of the difference between diseases CAUSED by UV exposure and those MADE WORSE by UV exposure. Health conditions that can be CAUSED by using a tanning bed include skin cancers, skin burns, cataracts, premature skin wrinkling, fragile thinning of the skin, dry skin and rashes. One a person is exposed to high levels of UV they become more sensitive to skin damage when exposed again in the future. There have been reports of clients who suffered from electrical shock, lacerations and falls due to unsafe conditions related to use of a tanning bed. Of course, these three could occur under a wide variety of other situations unrelated to tanning. There are diseases that are often associated with using a tanning bed, but are not caused by such use alone. The hygiene of the operator has a major effect on the extent to which these conditions might become evident. These ASSOCIATED conditions include conjunctivitis (pink eye), herpes simplex, staphylococcus infections, e coli infection, crab lice, fungus infections (vitiligo, tinea versicolor). None of those conditions is CAUSED by tanning. They may be exacerbated (made worse) by improper use of the unit. There are other conditions also not caused by UV, but that could have serious enough effects when present in conjunction with UV exposure and if the condition exists indoor tanning should not be done. Tanning with UV lamps is contraindicated for those who have systemic lupus erythematosis (SLE), porphyria, xeroderma pigmentosum (XP), rosacea, solar urticaria, psoriasis, and polymorphic light eruption (PLE). Use of a tanning bed does not necessarily confer the intended tan, and is thus likely to be a waste of money and time for those with highly pigmented skin, the aged, those with UV sensitivity, certain skin types, the very young, those who cannot stay still or keep their eyes protected during the session, and those taking photosensitizing medications. Another point to remember is that when a physician uses a form of UV to treat a particular condition it is necessary to resolve a health problem. Indoor tanning is not a necessary activity. It is voluntary exposure, involves exposure to the entire body, and can result in demonstrable adverse health effects.