Talk:Indoor tanning

Proposed deletion of text in 6.1 Risks > Cancer risk

@SlimVirgin: Thank you for your help recently.

I have another proposal - I think the following text should be deleted because the content is too old. The study being cited is from 10 years ago. Because it is biomedical information, the WP:MEDRS criteria (WP:MEDDATE) of five years or earlier should be applied.

Section: 6.1 Risks > Cancer risk

"A 2007 analysis of epidemiological studies found a modest increase in the risk of melanoma (a relative risk of 1.15) among those who had ever used a tanning device compared to those who had not, but a 75 percent increase (a relative risk of 1.75) among those who had used one before age 30."

What do you think of this? I wanted to run the idea past you.

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It was because of the 2007 paper that the IARC raised the classification of tanning devices to group 1, so it needs to be included. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I understand the need to keep the information about IARC raising the classification of tanning devices to group 1. I propose we keep the citation for that, but we delete the old statistics because we I found and posted (with your help) more updated statistics, per WP:MEDDATE: "In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written." --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

We say "Following that study, the IARC placed UV-emitting tanning devices on its highest cancer-risk category, 'carcinogenic to humans'." Are you suggesting we say "following that study" without telling the reader what the study said? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE doesn't imply the wholesale deletions of anything older than five years. In this case expert opinion doesn't appear to have changed, and the older review isn't necessarily "superseded", especially when it's the current IARC review. --tronvillain (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait... it's not the most recent IARC review, this 2012 review is. And while it mentions the review that mentions the numbers already in this article, it also says The second meta-analysis(Hirst et al., 2009) included an additional nested case–control study of melanoma (Han et al., 2006), bringing the total number of melanoma cases to 7855, and the summary relative risk for melanoma in relation to ever versus never use of sunbeds was reported as 1.22 (95%CI: 1.07–1.39). Why not switch to this one? --tronvillain (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would leave it unless you have a more recent equivalent study to put in it's place. Just because the study is older, that doesn't mean we are forced to remove the citation. Policy favors newer references but doesn't force us to abandon older ones. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Image I'd like to add to the article

Caption of the photo from Palosirkka - I added this earlier but somebody removed it for whatever reason. I think it's a great historical picture.

I added this earlier but somebody removed it for whatever reason. I think it's a great historical picture.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs)

I believe user Palosirkka is asking to have the image added back to the page although formatted kind of strange so forgive me for moving some of their talk page comment without permission. I removed the picture a while ago as I don't see the "great historical" benefit of having it in the article. When removed, I asked what it had to do with indoor tanning and never received a response. I still don't see how it serves the reader of the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. BD2412 T 18:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be sensational to have a picture of indoor tanning in an article about indoor tanning. I don't understand why you object it. --Palosirkka (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say, "sensational"? BD2412 T 16:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Weighing in long after this was settled, but the image in question is clearly about using UV light as a vitamin D deficiency treatment rather than an early example of indoor tanning. David notMD (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Tanning Beds

are for more than recreational use, they are a firm of physical therapy, for the spine. JoeyShae (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Germany addition to regulation section

Please add that to the regulation section, with a new section for germany:

On June 19, 2009, the Bundestag passed a law banning minors from using tanning beds, which was upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court. On the grounds that neither the general freedom of action of young people (Art. 2 (1) GG), nor the right to raise children from the parents, nor the freedom of occupation is violated. Since the ban only has a restrictive effect, as teens still have the option of sunbathing outdoors and using private solariums. And parents have the option of allowing their children access to UV radiation in their private lives if they consider this to be responsible and appropriate. The same applies to the operators, since, in view of the high priority given to the protection of young people and the legislature's understandable assessment of the danger to children and young people from the use of sunbeds, the restriction on the professional activities of tanning salon operators associated with the legal regulation appears reasonable and proportionate.

It was reasonable to assume that the legislator believed that dispensing with this additional source of radiation—in addition to natural UV radiation from sunlight—would effectively contribute to a noticeable reduction in UV radiation exposure among children and adolescents, which, based on scientific knowledge, is not objectionable.

Because information campaigns and voluntary commitments have not had a sufficient impact to date, legislators were justified in doubting that young people under the age of 18 possess the necessary maturity to refrain from visiting tanning salons and similar establishments independently and responsibly. The Other Karma (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Not done: the suggested edit is unbalanced towards justifying for the ban. Please review the neutral point of view policy, as we aren't an advocacy organisation. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Alpha Beta Delta Lambda how would you approach this? As that it is unbalanced towards justifying for the ban, is not my direction, that's what the source says. Should I also include the views of people who believe that it should be made available to those aged under 18? However, these reasons were rejected by the Constitutional Court, as described above. The Other Karma (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Just because there is a reliable source doesn't mean that we should include it. We already have a section on risks of tanning, and we already have a section on the EU's regulation. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court, so we don't need to repeat their decision here. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah yeah, so we can exclude the first sentence. But the rest would be fine, wouldn't it? The EU Section is just a summary of some states, but none of them explain the dependencies to other laws. The Other Karma (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? As aforementioned, we aren't a court so we don't need to include every law in the world. Also, I don't think these sources alone justify for a three-pargraphs section. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

But we are an Encyclopedia, we try to collect all the knowledge known to humankind. As there is more to write about, it rather says that we should have an article in every country, as those would fulfill WP:GNG. And those three sentences, are a start but still not enough to create an own article. Would you agree? The Other Karma (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

We are a summary of all knowledge. Including this information has nothing to do with new articles. Please collect consensus for your change before you request it. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Then let's just leave it at that, that it's not in the article. Discussing it further would only annoy both of us. The Other Karma (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Motivation Change

Hi, please change the Overview section to that, i incoperated the data that is already in the article and made it more comprehensive:

Motivations

Motivations for going to the solarium or tanning, or for stopping, include:

• Aesthetic values: Tanned skin was often considered attractive, particularly in terms of its effect on the opposite sex. It served to conceal scars, make people appear slimmer, and emphasize their muscles. Social occasions such as parties or holidays were also cited as reasons for tanning. Tanned skin was considered a symbol of health, prosperity, ambition, and a successful lifestyle. It was also seen as a means of boosting self-confidence and self-esteem. Aesthetic concerns such as premature skin aging or flaking were often cited as reasons for not tanning. Aesthetic norms shaped by peers were cited as the main trigger for a change in physical appearance. Others cited celebrities as role models, as tanned skin was conveyed as a desirable and socially accepted ideal. Women are under greater pressure than men to have a tanned appearance. [9] However, there were no reports that peers had directly influenced the appreciation of tanned skin or the decision to refrain from tanning, even though a social trend toward a more “natural” appearance has been observed in recent years. When no alternatives were available, many resorted to tanning beds. Products such as sprays or lotions (“spray tanning” or “artificial tanning”) were often found to be aesthetically unsatisfactory – for example, due to an orange tint, uneven distribution, or unwanted residue. Sunbathing was described as cumbersome and time-consuming, with the results often perceived as less satisfactory compared to tanning beds. Some advocated alternatives to indoor tanning products but rarely used them – mostly in preparation for special occasions or summer. A minority who found these alternatives acceptable resorted to them after giving up tanning beds. In some cases, acceptance of such alternatives was even the main reason for giving up tanning beds. The easy availability and affordability of indoor tanning was cited as a reason for not using alternatives. Others gave up tanning due to lack of time or when studios were no longer conveniently located or alternatives became more accessible. Women, in particular, say not only that they prefer their appearance with tanned skin, but that they receive the same message from friends and family, especially from other women. They believe tanned skin makes them look thinner and more toned, and that it covers or heals skin blemishes such as acne. Other reasons include acquiring a base tan for further sunbathing; that a uniform tan is easier to achieve in a tanning unit than in the sun; and a desire to avoid tan lines. Proponents of indoor tanning say that tanning beds deliver more consistent, predictable exposure than the sun, but studies show that indoor tanners do suffer burns. In two surveys in the US in 1998 and 2004, 58% of indoor tanners said they had been burned during sessions.
• Physical effects: Some individuals reported that solarium visits could alleviate skin problems—for example, by “pre-tanning” before vacation to prevent sunburn. The solarium was also cited as a source of vitamin D to alleviate physical discomfort. According to the study authors, many users cited health benefits as a reason for not admitting that they tanned for aesthetic reasons. However, there was evidence that the motivation to quit increased when the supposed health benefits were overshadowed by physical damage, such as changes to moles.
• Psychological effects: Tanning was also associated with psychological well-being – for example, through its relaxing effect, the “time for oneself,” or positive social interactions with service providers. The pleasant physical sensation of tanning and the alleviation of psychological complaints such as seasonal depression were also mentioned. In addition, it was reported that a tanned complexion increased self-confidence. However, when the process was perceived as unpleasant, the motivation to stop was particularly high. Some stated that they wanted to conform to the behavior of their age group so as not to “stand out from the crowd.” In some cases, they were even actively reminded by their peers to tan. When this social influence was removed, many tended to stop sunbathing. Indoor tanning was sometimes described as a habit or even an addiction—an example of automated behavior that was maintained because of psychological benefits. One participant spoke of a “longing for warmth and sensation.” People who did not find their tanning behavior addictive found it easier to stop and did not suffer any psychological impairment. Tanners often cite feelings of well-being; exposure to tanning beds is reported to "increase serum beta-endorphin levels by 44%". Beta-endorphin is associated with feelings of relaxation and euphoria, including "runner's high".

The Other Karma (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: too long Oreocooke (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)