With Academy Ball a little over a month away, Notre Dame Academy girls may already be shopping for dresses and boys may already be getting measured for tuxes to prepare for the event.
For those who did not get a natural tan during Spring Break, students may even contemplate the option of tanning as a way to get a “healthy glow.” Yet, “healthy glow” is actually a paradox, and students should reconsider tanning due to the many health risks associated with fake tanning or fake baking.
First, fake tanning is a sign of skin damage, according to Sharon Miller, M.S.E.E., FDA scientist, and it also results in the premature aging or wrinkling of the skin. Skin therefore appears more leathery as one gets older.
A more aged appearance is just the beginning of the negative effects of tanning. Fake tanning can be lethal. Studies show that the likelihood of skin cancer increases by 75 percent when people start using tanning beds before age 30. To also emphasize the harm of fake tanning, experts found proof that all types of ultraviolet radiation is deadly. Both of the two types of harmful UV rays are emitted from the lamps used at tanning salons: UV-A, which enter the top layers of skin and cause sunburn, and UV-B which go through the deeper skin layers and often cause allergic reactions.
The National Cancer Institution (NCI) states that tanning increases the risk of developing skin cancer and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) warned that artificial tanning devices are associated with two types of skin cancer—squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma.
As a young adult at Notre Dame Academy, it may be hard to fathom death; however, 68,000 people in the United States will have melanoma this year, and one out of eight will die from it. Furthermore, melanoma is the second most common cancer in women from 20 to 29 years old.
Those who support the use of tanning devices claim that artificial tanning is less dangerous than sun tanning due to being able to control the intensity of UV rays and time; however, there is no clear evidence to support the assertion. Conversely, artificial tanning possibly is more dangerous compared to the sun because it can be used every day of the year with high intensity.
Tanning also inhibits the body’s immune system and natural protection of the skin, causes damage to the eyes and possibly influences an allergic reaction.. Fake tanning especially should not be done if one is pregnant because the intense ultraviolet rays may prevent the body’s absorption of folic acid, which aids the development of the baby’s brain and spinal cord.
Katie Stewart, senior and former “fake baker,” said she tanned a little last year, but after reading the effects of tanning and health risks, she stopped. Stewart said, “I don’t know how someone could go tanning while knowing the potential damage they could be doing to their skin.”
Although senior Katie Gast said she does not like to tan because it is unhealthy, she admits she does use tanning beds “on occasion.” Even though tanning in moderation is emphasized by the FDA, dermatologists strongly discourage fake tanning and think it is not worth the risk.
So why do people still tan even though it can be harmful? One reason is because people consider the “golden glow” to be appealing; however, many people regard it as unnatural and not attractive. Senior Marcelo Assis said, “Fake tanning makes girls look orange. Orange is not an attractive color, at least on people.”
Marc Wendt agrees, saying “On the whole, I would say an obviously unnatural tan is less appealing than a pasty complexion, especially when everybody else is as white as a sheet.”
Another reason why people tan is due to the availability, varying price range, and the deception of tanning salons. Sun Seekers, a popular tanning salon in the Green Bay area, costs $4 per tanning session and memberships range from $19-$100 depending on the intensity levels of the tanning beds. On the Sun Seekers website, they include how their tanning options comply with FDA regulations and also provide other rules which their company views as necessary.
Rules include waiting 24 hours between tanning sessions, wearing approved protective eyewear while tanning, being at least 16 years old to tan with UV in Wisconsin, sanitizing beds before each use, and prohibiting pregnant women from tanning, yet the health risks are not included on the website. The website instead glamorizes tanning by including pictures of models.
For those who think that tanning salons are safe, consider that they might be deceptive and not following FDA regulations. In a study sponsored by the NCI, researchers hired and trained college students to pose as 15-year-old, fair-skinned girls who had never tanned before and found that less than 11 percent of 3,600 facilities in 50 states followed the FDA regulation of three or fewer sessions the first week. A whopping 71 percent said they would allow a teen to tan all seven days the first week, and tanning centers also encouraged discount pricing.
Luckily, there is a safe alternative to getting a tan if one so desires, that is, sunless tanning products or self-tanners. Unlike tanning beds which change the pigmentation of the skin by the use of harmful ultraviolet rays, sunless tanning products are merely applied to the skin in the form of creams, lotions and gels which include dihydroxacetone, an active ingredient which temporarily darkens the skin’s appearance due to reacting with the dead cells of the outermost layer of the skin. Rather than washing off, sunless tanning products gradually fade. Also, if one desires, professional spray-on tanning is available to ensure an even tan.
In brief, one can be ready for Academy Ball without risking his or her health.

Editor’s note: Some information was taken from http://www.sunseekerstan.net/, http://www.fda.gov/radiation/emittingproducts/radiationemittingproductsandprocedures/tanning/default.htm, http://www.skincancerprevention.org/, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/28/eveningnews/main5194604.shtml