Just 'D' facts

Honestly,
When there is so much research AGAINST tanning and they are finding more and more research conclusively connecting tanning to skin cancer, why would you decide to go against something that has been tested over and over again.
Read this article
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4534076
"New Ads Claim Tanning Is Good for You"
NON MEDICAL expert Sarah Longwell of the Indoor Tanning Association says, ""The dermatologists, the sunscreen and cosmetic industries have tried to say that somehow moderate tanning causes melanoma, which is just not true,"
Yes Sarah, you are also lying, like Ken
"But one doctor said people can get their daily vitamin D requirement from food and a few minutes of sun a week.
Yale Medical School's David Leffell said the ads are misleading"
I've spoken with Professors who teach in the Molecular and Cellular Biology department and from the Food Science and Health Nutrition of this university and the answers are the same.
You get enough vitamin D from just being outside, you don't NEED tanning beds
end of story!!

Please read Dr. Bernard Ackerman's monograph, "Melanoma: Myth on Myth" -- you'll see that there is no evidence that tanning in a non-burning fashion is associated with melanoma, nor has any study ever been conducted to isolate tanning in a non-burning fashion.

What has yet to be reported to the media by doctors is one very important caveat: The ONLY studies that have ever suggested tanning is linked to melanoma are epidemiologic studies -- surveys that are designed only to show correlation, but not causation. It's like asking someone in a bread line if they are hungry, and then reporting that people in a bread line are 75 percent more likely to be hungry, and then blaming the bread line for CAUSING their hunger. It doesn't make sense.

SPF manufacturers are paying doctors to confuse you into believing that any UV exposure is deadly. Funny, every other living thing on our planet needs it to survive. But somehow we are different -- we need unnatural chemicals on our bodies to survive??

Read Ackerman's book. Ackerman is a research dermatologist and is a pioneer in dermatopathology -- decorated by the American Academy of Dermatology as a Master Dermatologist, their highest honor. He bases his conclusion on evidence -- not on pop-science.

The case of your sister only serves to underscore this point -- she burned in the 1960s by overdoing it. That hardly implicates tanning in a non-burning fashion as a risk factor. And what's more we know that certain people are at elevated risk of melanoma regardless of their sun habits.

You might not realize that chemical sunscreen, while it prevents sunburn, has not been proven to prevent skin cancer, nor are SPF manufacturers permitted to claim that it does. So they pay dermatology groups to make that supposition for them - much like the Tobacco industry used to pay doctors to tell people that smoking wasn't dangerous.

If anyone is like the Tobacco Industry it is the multibillion-dollar Chemical Sunscreen industry.

Think about it: They have you brainwashed that you are supposed to put unnatural chemicals on your body 365/24 -- toxic chemicals that we now know are not innocuous, are present in your internal organs. Check out the CDC report that shows that 97 percent of us now have oxybenzone in our urine. And look at the work the independent Environmental Working Group has done on the untold risks of over-use of chemical sunscreens.

Sunscreen should ONLY be used to prevent sunburn on days when sunburn is possible. Period. End of story. But now it is a daily-use cosmetic that we know is causing vitamin D deficiency.

Melanoma has run in my family too. My father had it. My brother has had it. So I have researched it extensively and have learned the facts don't support the message you are suggesting.