Selected indoor tanning myths and controversies

Abstract

In the face of increasing evidence that indoor tanning is harmful, tanning enthusiasts and the tanning industry defend the practice on several grounds. The principal argument offered in defense of year-round tanning is the claimed health benefit of high levels of vitamin D, also called the sunshine vitamin, which is made in skin following UV irradiation. However, vitamin D is readily available as an oral supplement; and oral vitamin D obviates the needed exposure to UV light that also leads to photoaging and skin cancer. Further, the claimed health benefits of high vitamin D levels are unproven. A second myth, that indoor tanning is safer than sun tanning ignores the fact that tanning is a well-established DNA damage response, achieved in proportion to DNA damage, regardless of the exact wavelengths emitted by tanning bulbs or by the sun. Similarly, obtaining a base tan before a planned sunny vacation will not decrease cumulative UV damage. Finally, indoor tanning may be occasionally an effective, more convenient and less expensive alternative to physician-supervised phototherapy for patients with UV-responsive skin disease, but for most patients professional staff and medical light sources with specific spectral output established as optimal for their disease provide far superior safety and efficacy.