Former Presidential royalty and all-time White House hottie JFK had his share of medical problems lurking just below the surface of that winning smile. One illness plaguing him was Addison’s Disease, a symptom of which involves the build up of a substance that darkened his skin – hence old Jack’s year-round tan and his ability to make middle-aged Dems swoon even today.
In pursuit of bronzed bodies of their own, Americans have been hitting the beaches in larger and larger droves every year as well as tanning salons, which have become a $5-billion-a-year monster in this country. But because of an otherwise inexplicable rise in skin cancer rates among the young, health officials have begun cracking down on indoor-tanning services, especially among kids. The Times reports that in the past 3 years, 19 states have made it illegal for under-aged patrons to tan their fannies under the incessant hum of those UV lights – this includes both New York and New Jersey with those states, in fact, having the strictest regulations in the country, forbidding anyone below the age of 14 from climbing in a booth. Several large health organizations have equated tanning salons with cigarettes in terms of the cancer risk posed to minors.
This is in spite of the fact that there’s been no confirmatory evidence in establishing a definite link between the UV light from sun lamps and skin cancer. Even the FDA’s own research has only been able to conclude that though there may be a suggestion of a relationship between the two, findings were still inconclusive. And the fact that skin cancer rates have been going up is hardly proof and may be owing to the fact that more rigorous skin cancer screening programs exist now. Part of the problem in proving a link though may lie in the fact that skin cancers, especially the deadliest kind, melanoma, takes years to show up. But their point is, hey, UV light is UV light so stay the hell out.
So, just like the self-breast and testicular exams we should all be going through every month, dermatologists recommend performing a regular mirror aided search-and-destroy to find moles that don’t look quite right. If you have a mole that's bothering you, definitely go see your doctor. Some of the findings that should set off your alarm bells are if the mole is Asymmetric, has irregular Borders, is not the same Color all the way through, has a large Diameter (bigger than 6 mm), and is Evolving/changing (love those med school mnemonics). Some risk factors for melanoma include being male, being over 50, having a family member with it, having fair skin or red hair, or a history of sunburns as a kid. So what's our advice to our fellow tanners? Everything in moderation, please - unlike the girl in the Times piece who was shocked that she developed melanoma after using a tanning salon no fewer than three times a week. Or maybe skip the tanning and hit the pool instead.





If people are so vain that they want to risk skin cancer, I think we can say it is natrual selection in action.
What's the obsession with people wanting to look like worn out leather bags?
I was on a plane to Vegas one time, and there was this couple in the row in front of me. I caught a glimpse of the girlfriend/wife (or whatever), and actually reeled back in fear for a moment, not expecting what I saw. She had straw-like hair and a face that made an aging potbelly pig with dermatitis look handsome. Sure she had that golden tan, but looked like death!
For awhile now, they've been saying that breast self-exams are useless, especially compared to mammography:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/20/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main554870.shtml
I think people who tan in this day and age are nuts. Seriously, what is better... to look "hot" in your twenties (for, let's say, a decade) or hot for the remaining 50+ years of your life. My dad just had a huge chunk of his face removed due to not using sunscreen as a kid.
Had a friend die from skin cancer.
Which is better? Remember the seventies?
Rose Ann Scamardella or Kaity Tong,
both came onto the news scene the same time,
now tell me, which one looks better?
Neutrogena MicroMist, people. It's a way of life.
I once had one of those special permanent sun damage Polariods taken, along with my mom and stepdad. Since about the age of 19, I've religiously used spf moisturizer (I'm 34 now). Regardless, I still had about as much permanent damage in my face as my mom.
Depletion of the ozone layer pretty much means we're not dealing with our parents' sun. So keep reapplying that shit!
Ever notice how former high school goths and other misfits look fantastic as they age? We didn't spend our teens in tanning beds. I know there are self-tanners and all, but what's the point of wanting to look like you just got out of radiation treatments?
The first person who develops a natural-looking sunless tanner/bronzer with UVA/UVB sunblock, that's easy and quick to apply and doesn't cost more than $5-10 a week will become a gazillionaire, I tell you. I think a lot of these kids avoid the sunless stuff because it's too expensive and/or looks fake. Make it cheap and rake in the profits by selling tons of it.
Then again, there was also some inconclusive research that showed these tanning addicts also get a boost in serotonin levels from UV, which can make anyone a little happier and more relaxed. Still not worth it to me, though.
Actually, a lot of elderly ladies from poorer familes look much better than the generation after them. My 94-year-old grandma has always worn gloves and a big hat while working in the garden; when she was a child, she was told that a suntan would make othes think she was a farm worker, or other commoner.
It amazes me that kids in their 20s are getting wrinkles.
The ones that you see all wrinkled up normally have not used a good tanning lotion or have totally abused the tanning bed. Tanning should be done in moderation.