23
By fishwizard - / Friday 2 June 2017 20:00 /
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
By  neuronerd  |  28

Do you eat a lot of carrots? I've only seen people look orange with spray tans, not natural tans.

Comments
By  neuronerd  |  28

Do you eat a lot of carrots? I've only seen people look orange with spray tans, not natural tans.

Reply
  species4872  |  19

A tanning bed is not a natural tan.

Reply
  neuronerd  |  28

It is in the sense of the fact that it's UV rays causing damage to the cells and affecting melanin production. Indoor and outdoor tanning use the same mechanism and are both harmful.

Reply
  species4872  |  19

Err no, not in a sense it isn't. Natural light, different spectrum, different intensities of "light" within that spectrum. Our bodies have evolved to natural light and produce melanin at a certain rate in response to natural light. Tanning beds have enhanced UV spectrum output which is inherently much higher than the production of melanin can cope with, which is why tanning beds are much more destructive. In short one would have to be an idiot to use one.

Reply
  neuronerd  |  28

Incorrect. Tanning beds use primarily the UVA spectrum with some UVB, both of which are present in sunlight. Visible light, also in sunlight, does not produce the tanning reaction. You are correct that a greater amount of UVA rays are emitted than when exposed to natural sunlight, hence why a tan develops in minutes, not hours, but it is the same biochemical mechanism. You're arguing semantics at this point, as I'm sure you're well aware the difference I was pointing out was between natural as a physiological reaction vs basically dying the skin with a spray tan. I realize you're trying to sound intelligent, but you're being more pedantic.

Reply
  species4872  |  19

My initial comment was solely directed to your reference to natural tans, not spray tans and your second comment implied that there was no difference between tanning from sunlight or a tanning bed apart from the fact that both are harmful. My second comment was in reply to the before mentioned statement pointing out that the UV output of tanning beds is such a high level in respect to natural light that their use is highly destructive as opposed to natural light. Hardly a pedantic distinction considering that there are still many unaware of the dangers that tanning beds, (even used properly), pose.

By  klutzyduck1  |  24

You must have also used a tanning cream with a bronzer, the bronzer is what would turn you orange. I think you're leaving out some bits, most likely you've tanned before and the bronzer cream has built up enough it looks obviously orange. Otherwise, if this was the first time, even at 9 minutes, it would be likely you'd burn a bit (hence the low max time). The new beds are extra powerful. So, if you don't want to look like an umpa-lumpa, either don't use a cream or use one without bronzer. However, tanning beds are terrible for you skin. Your face will thank you in ten years if you just stop.

Reply
  DataWog  |  26

I've used a bronzing lotion exactly once in my life, just for shits & giggles. It didn't turn me orange, but for some reason it seemed to work more on the main skin colour than on my freckles... so for a couple days, instead of being white with brownish dots, I was brownish with white dots.

By  Taurus_ChicKa  |  27

You never start on the max setting your first time. You always start at like two minutes and work your way up to a longer duration. But really, tanning is overrated. Melanoma is a serious disease, FYI.

By  Sertorius  |  2

Commercial operation of tanning beds is prohibited in Australia, for good reason. They are extremely carcinogenic; at a minimum you are significantly accelerating the aging of your skin (ironic that people do it for cosmetic reasons). A tan is your body's response to cellular damage, it is not indicative of good health.

Loading data…