On this World Cancer Day, we interrupt our Valentine’s Day programming to remind you to spread the word that using tanning beds is B.A.D. Remember, it’s now official: tanning beds are in the highest-cancer-risk category according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
It’s that time of year when pasty-white folks book sunny beach vacations, and start the trip off with a few tanning-bed sessions beforehand to “create a base.” Create a base of skin cancer maybe? Because, in addition to the highest-cancer-risk thing, according to the Canadian Dermatology Association, dumbass idots who think a tan can protect them have more skin damage coming: “at most, a tan is the equivalent to a sunscreen with SPF of just 2 to 4. Not enough to keep you safe in the sun.”
If you know someone heading for sunny shores, show your love with bottles (note plural — one is not enough for a week on a beach) of paraben-free SPF protection, preferably without Oxybenzone (studies indicate it has hormone-disruptor tendencies). A good alternative to the standard stuff out there is paraben-free Cliniderm Gentle Protective Lotion SPF 45 ($29), which contains micronized natural sunscreen ingredients titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.
Cliniderm Gentle Protective Lotion SPF 45 is available at Shoppers Drug Mart; cliniderm.ca for info.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
I was a fake ‘n’ bake kinda gal in my mid 20s. SOOO BAD! The amount of times I got burnt – yikes.
Thank you for that important news flash!
Glad to hear you’re done with that phase, E! I had a few sessions years back as well, but decided it wasn’t for me, experience or healthwise.
This article is selling sunscreen by scaring us to death! Note, “A good alternative to the standard stuff out there is paraben-free Cliniderm Gentle Protective Lotion SPF 45 ($29), which contains micronized natural sunscreen ingredients titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.” So…I should rush out and buy this stuff, right? I bet sales go up after this article. Nothing more than a marketing stunt, but unfortunately at the expense of public health. Scaring people out of the sun has created an epidemic of Vitamin D deficiencies that are killing an estimated 338,000 people a year.
Hi Tracie,
Thanks for your feedback. This was really much more about scaring people away from sunbeds than into using sunscreen. *grin*
I don’t profit from Cliniderm sales in any way, so whether they go up or not as a result of my post is not my concern. Fact is the health hazards of intense unprotected sun exposure are indisputable. As to vitamin D deficiencies, how do we know the people who are deficient are lacking because they’ve been too diligent with their SPF applications? I’m diligent myself and avoid the sun as much as possible (it’s uncomfortable on my sensitive skin), yet have no such deficiency. And no, I’m not taking vitamin D supplements (I keep forgetting).
I’m so glad I got out of my tanning bed faze. Thankfully it only lasted a few months after I decided I didn’t like feeling like I was baking in an oven.
Thanks for the extra tips on the sunscreen. I have vacation coming up soon and you are right, one bottle is not nearly enough.
Nicely put, Chick! Baking in an oven… or being microwaved! It’s not that far off the mark, really.
I think people forget that on a beach vacay they’ll need more sunscreen than they’d use during their day-to-day at-home living. I’ve heard too often the story of someone not taking enough and either suffering a bad burn from inadequate application or spending a ton of cash on whatever the resort sold in addition to suffering a burn because the formula was ineffective. That’s a double burn if you ask me — ouchie!
I can see where Tracie is coming from in that I do think the whole sunscreen industry has created an unhealthy fear of the sun. And yes I DO think that could be part of the growing epidemic of vitamin D deficiencies, especially here in Canada where we barely get sun anyway. Not that I’m advocating tanning beds either, mind you! I think, however, that sunscreen can promote a false sense of security – people need to use common sense, i.e. they should NEVER be baking in mid-day sun, sunscreen or not!
Glad you also recommended the Cliniderm product. We beauty peeps need to do a better job of educating people on why the chemical sunscreens are really bad. (Kristen Ma’s book has a good section on this.)
I hear you, Michelle, but I’m not convinced of that vitamin D thing being all about SPF is all. Just want to see direct correllations — does anyone know someone who is lacking vitamin D because of SPF? I’m also so much more about SPF because I think people are unaware about how little time it takes for today’s sun to do damage. That’s probably because it takes me so little time :-)
I don’t think you could ever prove a direct sunscreen/vitamin D link, as it’s likely a combo of diet deficiencies *plus* lack of sun exposure. For example, cod liver oil – which probably most of our parents and grandparents were forced to drink – is a really high source of vitamin D… in fact the IU amount you get through the oil (and probably other food sources) is WAY higher than is safe to take in a pill format. Also read some neat reports that people who’ve been taking cod liver oil for a while don’t burn in the sun.
So I think there’s definitely some broader health connections we beauty eds sometimes miss in our SPF evangelism.
Going to research this more – and prob order some high quality cod liver oil – so will report back! I’m actually more of a health geek than a beauty geek, secretly…
I think I just get a tad irked when folks get all SPF-is-bad-because-of-vitamin-D-deficiencies. There aren’t any definitive answers on it, clearly.
I’m interested in whatever you learn about cod liver oil, that’s for sure!
In the meantime, I’ll continue to protect my skin and try to remember to take my vitamin D supplements. I’m too attached to the younger-looking skin that results from limited sun exposure!